"Apple Computer as a whole was a massive failure"

[Array]

im still hoping apple can make a comeback with their new G5 line....even though I use wintel boxes, microsoft NEEDS the competition.....but it seems most of their competition is coming from linux in the corporate sector. how about some competition regarding desktop computing?

[Thalaxis]

It's a shame that Apple seems to be going out of their way to
avoid competing with Windows on the desktop, especially since
right now the biggest stumbling block facing MS is, in fact,
Windows.

Did you see the Gnome review on ArsTech this week? It's coming
along nicely; there is finally enough unity in the Linux community
to start moving it into the mainsteam, as opposed to just being a
wall for MS in the enterprise and technical computing niches.

Even if Apple continues to choose not to compete with MS, there
is competition for MS on the way.

And I agree, that competition will be a welcome change.
Personally, I suspect that even though MS would deny it and their
near-term future is not an issue, MS is starting to feel a bit of a
fire under their rather large ass...

[agreenster]

Yeah. The G5 seems like one helluva workstation. RenderMan is soon to be available for OSX as well (https://renderman.pixar.com/products/news/G5_release.html)

[malducin]

I wonder if the clone makers had really taken off if the story would have been different. The G5s certainly look nice but the hardware inflexibility and a bit of premium pricing turns me off a bit. Maybe now that the G5s are even more competitive Apple can start attacking the market better.

[trthing]

Originally posted by malducin
I wonder if the clone makers had really taken off if the story would have been different. The G5s certainly look nice but the hardware inflexibility and a bit of premium pricing turns me off a bit. Maybe now that the G5s are even more competitive Apple can start attacking the market better.

I feel quite the same about the hardware although I understand it is from there that Macs derive much of its market edge...

I really want them to make those prices lower so I can risk switching: right now it is just too high a price tag (I am not in the US of course; I wonder if the price difference is high in the US as well)

[Thalaxis]

Originally posted by trthing
I feel quite the same about the hardware although I understand it is from there that Macs derive much of its market edge...


Edge? It seems to me that that is their biggest drawback --
especially if you open up the case and take a close look. In fact,
the closer you look, the more it looks like a Dell, Boxx, Gateway...
etc under the hood.

Apple's edge is OSX. They have yet to take advantage of this from
a business perspective.


I really want them to make those prices lower so I can risk switching: right now it is just too high a price tag (I am not in the US of course; I wonder if the price difference is high in the US as well)

They are still pricier than comparable x86 rigs, but by a
considerably smaller margin than before.

Well, at least in the US they are... I don't know what their current
prices look like elsewhere, to be honest.

[agreenster]

Under $3000 for dual 2.0 gHz 64 bit processor and 1gHz per-chip FS bus and 512k per chip cache and up to 8GB of 400mHz PC3200 DDR ram. That aint such a bad deal. You cant really find an equivalent for that price) anywhere else.

The standard video card sux tho'.

http://www.apple.com/powermac/specs.html

I also heard a rumor that at the last Shareholder's meeting at Pixar they were hammering out the details for switching their pipeline (or at least much of it) to OSX/Apple.:hmm:

[RobertoOrtiz]

Cough cough..
The smoke of the AXE being GRINDED, got to me...

-R

[Thalaxis]

Originally posted by agreenster
Under $3000 for dual 2.0 gHz 64 bit processor and 1gHz per-chip FS bus and 512k per chip cache and up to 8GB of 400mHz PC3200 DDR ram. That aint such a bad deal. You cant really find an equivalent for that price) anywhere else.


No idea about the rumor, since it's still unconfirmed... but the
baseline Boxx dual Opteron configuration is pretty close to that
config. The price and starting clock speed are both lower, but the
default graphics card is nicer.

So while you're right that it's not a bad deal, it also doesn't stand
out from the crowd, what with companies like Boxx and RackSaver
and AlienWare competing with it, and even comparably-priced
64-bit Intel-based solutions on the way.

[beaker]

The topic is a little missleading. The story refers to while he was working at apple in the 80's and early 90's and all the issues they had. He is not refering to it in it's current encarnation because he hasn't worked there in 10 years.

[moovieboy]

Wild speculation here... But, if Apple, during the rise of Microsoft, would have competed on every aspect, toe-to-toe, matching strategy... Would Microsoft have gone out of its way to kill off Apple by hook or by crook?:shrug:

-Tom

[Thalaxis]

My guess would be buyout... on their rise, MS was big into that
sort of thing; since they hadn't become a monopoly yet, they
could probably have gotten away with it.

[beaker]

Originally posted by Thalaxis
My guess would be buyout... on their rise, MS was big into that
sort of thing; since they hadn't become a monopoly yet, they
could probably have gotten away with it.
Depends when because the first anti-trust suits were allready being filied around the end of the 80's/beginning of the 90's. They would have had to buy them out pretty early otherwise the SEC wouldn't have allowed it.

[PhilOsirus]

There is really only one small problem at Apple. The fact that you can't just release whole new computer models every year as if you were making cars.

Apple's future should be in developing task-specific computers, such as computers for libraries only and that would mostly only be able to use the net (making them cheaper to make, hardly any upgrades needed, and they would run on a unique OS for its specific tasks, therefore very little chances of being infected by viruses). Develop internet-connected vending machines, so people can simply insert their credit cards and browse the desired items, buy at any time from anywhere, and receive a few days later. It could be good for rural regions where various items are difficult to find, and where the internet is not extremely well implented.

Ragrdless, Apple has shown innovation in both style and practicality, therefore they should aim for a market where style and practicality still needs great help. PCs only need to become smaller and stronger, while outside of the PC world there is a whole new field to explore for computerized systems implications. They have already demonstrated their great abilities at such a venture this year with iTune.

[richcz3]

Originally posted by Phil "Osirus"
There is really only one small problem at Apple. The fact that you can't just release whole new computer models every year as if you were making cars.

Yes, I agree with you on this. The clone market could have been pressed or encouraged to produce variants beyond the standard fare. This would have made a broader market that worked for the Windows PC. Unfortunately Steve Job's tight grip and eventual elimination of the Apple Clone market set the very linear course Apple struggled through in the late 90's.

I expect the G5 to bring good fortunes for Apple. Keep in mind that 4GHz will be achieved on Windows PC's by mid 2004. Apple must continue to raise speeds and produce models that ramp with their PC counterparts if they want to capture days of old.

I think the most realistic way for Apple to achieve that would be to allow clones to be produced again. Thalaxis is right, Apples OSX is their market force. They should bring that to bear. Forget about the hardware. The innards of a Apple computer have so many PC components it almost makes a mute argument not to clone.


richcz3

[beaker]

You seem to forget what happend last time they made clones. They were about to go out of business(2 years strait of loosing money) before Steve took over and dumped the clone market. Apple makes 95% of its market from hardware. It cannot survive on just making software. History will repeat itself if this is done again. You will have a bunch of companies making cheap machines with substandard parts that fall apart in 2 years(Thats what happend before, most of the clones were falling appart and had huge issues after the companies stopped making them from making cheap machines).

[richcz3]

I think Microsoft illustrates that making an OS is a healthy business. Even when that OS has a zillion components to work with.

Being that Apple has a tight fist approach to controlling their hardware interests, I would bet that Apple would be a bigger success than MS albeit on a different scale.

An Apple computer is no longer the pure bread it once was. Market forces have required Apple to adopt PC centric hardware which has helped to reduce its overall development costs. As time goes on this will only increase out of neccesity to maintain cost competative hold.
In the past couple years we have seen proprietary hardware (SGI) take it in the teeth and bum.

Apples problems in the early 90's stemmed from John Sculley's miscues and lack of direction. Keep in mind that even though Sculley was ousted by Jobs, Sculley did his part in fostering the PDA age with the introduction of the Newton. Maybe too far ahead of its time.

richcz3

[Thalaxis]

Originally posted by richcz3
I think Microsoft illustrates that making an OS is a healthy business. Even when that OS has a zillion components to work with.


It's even quite feasible to build a profitable business with open
source software.


Being that Apple has a tight fist approach to controlling their hardware interests, I would bet that Apple would be a bigger success than MS albeit on a different scale.


Their tight fisted control would preclude their ever being as big
a success as MS.


An Apple computer is no longer the pure bread it once was. Market forces have required Apple to adopt PC centric hardware which has helped to reduce its overall development costs. As time goes on this will only increase out of neccesity to maintain cost competative hold.
In the past couple years we have seen proprietary hardware (SGI) take it in the teeth and bum.


And even during the recession, Dell was profitable and growing.
Proprietary hardware can only be a sustainable business if there
is a compelling advantage in using it. Apple doesn't have one to
offer othere than Shake, and even that's going to be a problem
with Nothing Real porting to Linux/Itanium, and with the recent
massive price drops on the Itanium.


Apples problems in the early 90's stemmed from John Sculley's miscues and lack of direction. Keep in mind that even though Sculley was ousted by Jobs, Sculley did his part in fostering the PDA age with the introduction of the Newton. Maybe too far ahead of its time.


I thought it was funny that even before Apple started talking
about the Newton, IBM actually had working prototypes of a PDA
in their labs. It just didn't occur to anyone to try marketing them,
so instead they shelved the whole thing and didn't talk about it.

How's that for leadership?

It does explain the "Itty Bitty Morons" monnicker :)

[Scott Harris]

we just got some new G5's in my offoce...

Man that thing is insane...
for video...you get playback that you would never dream of having on a PC...wow...

mac has video editing on lockdown!
(i will always use my pc for 3D) then its targa sequence to the mac for editing and compositing baby....

[paintbox]

Hmmm, why isn't there a OSX for Intel/AMD Boxes ? Now that would make sense, beating MS on its own ground....

[Marc Andreoli]

Originally posted by Thalaxis
And even during the recession, Dell was profitable and growing.



...and so was/is Apple ;)

[Nemoid]

the few things i hate of Apple are :

1) its a completely separated world from PC so that not many users use both Mac and PC expecially if they come FROM Mac

2) its a wonderful machine for 2D, sound and other , but not for 3D because apple uses crap 3D video cards

3) OSX is very aesthethic OS, but not so functional like Windows in classic interface (without many unuseful things of WinXP UI)

all the rest can be good though. expecially colour accuracy.

[richcz3]

I will say this. That if the Amiga Computer lasted as long as it did with an incompetent company like Commodore running it, then Apple is not dead or dieing anytime soon.
Sure there were Amiga zealots espousing video editing #1 on the Amiga/Toaster and they were right, but the company as a whole dropped the ball.

I have to give it to Apple, their leader (Steve Jobs) because he really has made a difference to the Mac faithful. Apples Marketing department can really warp reality with silly claims, but the company as a whole has consistantly brought product to market. Apple may have a 3-4% market share, but I don't expect them to surrender that anytime soon.


richcz3

[(-o-)]

i always wondered why doesnt apple make an OS for pc's? Im sure if they did then they would get some or may be alot of users to use it and bring some great competition between M$ and Apple.....but im sure Bill wouldnt like that at all

[richcz3]

Although I believe Apple should look into cloning smaller units, I think that porting the OS over to the x86 architecture would signal a shift to current owners of Apple computers. That signal could be detrimental to Apples harware sales.

You really can't "Think Different" if you start mixing gene pools with Neanderthals. ;)

richcz3

[Thalaxis]

Originally posted by richcz3

You really can't "Think Different" if you start mixing gene pools with Neanderthals.


Well, those neandertals developed the majority of the technology
that has comprised Apple's last couple of generations of
computers, so they're testament to "thinking different" is, when it
comes to hardware, largely cosmetic.

I still think that OSX could be quite successful as a Windows
alternative in the commodity PC market.

Of course, if it did, then it would also start becoming a target for
virus writers, so I guess you can't have everything.

[beaker]

Originally posted by Thalaxis
I still think that OSX could be quite successful as a Windows
alternative in the commodity PC market.

Of course, if it did, then it would also start becoming a target for
virus writers, so I guess you can't have everything.
Beos thought so too, and look where it is now. I think OSX/Apple going into the pc world would be the same as SGI's venture into the pc hardware market.

Disaster

[Thalaxis]

Originally posted by beaker
Beos thought so too, and look where it is now. I think OSX/Apple going into the pc world would be the same as SGI's venture into the pc hardware market.


Consider each one logically.
BeOS:
Started on PPC hardware, which meant that their only market was
mac users, which was not only a small market but also not much
for interest in alternative OS's.
They didn't support IDE, the most popular graphics cards, or the
most popular sound card on the PC when they ported it... which
meant that most of their target market could not even run it.

SGI's cluster#$##:
Cost more than an Intergraph.
Offered less performance than Intergraph.
Offered no graphics hardware upgrade options whatsoever.
Required a custom HAL to run WindowsNT.
Shipped over a year late.

So basically, by drawing those analogies, you're saying that OSX
wouldn't succeed because Apple would screw it up royally just like
BeOS and SGI did.

In light of the fact that their software is their strength, I don't see
it that way.

[beaker]

Originally posted by Thalaxis
So basically, by drawing those analogies, you're saying that OSX wouldn't succeed because Apple would screw it up royally just like BeOS and SGI did.

In light of the fact that their software is their strength, I don't see
it that way.
Yes, I think they would screw it up. They would try to make quality hardware at a premium price just like SGI. Unfortunatly that market doesnt sell that well. Just look at all the previous casualties of that market: SGI, Integraph, etc... Though, they would probably use some kind of proprietary bios so you could only run OSX on their machines.

[Thalaxis]

Originally posted by beaker
Yes, I think they would screw it up. They would try to make quality hardware at a premium price just like SGI. Unfortunatly that market doesnt sell that well. Just look at all the previous casualties of that market: SGI, Integraph, etc... Though, they would probably use some kind of proprietary bios so you could only run OSX on their machines.

Good point. They probably wouldn't be able to handle not being
as proprietary as possible.

They should just get Boxx or Dell or some company like that on
board as a VAR, and give up the hardware control entirely. IMO
they have until Longhorn a pretty nice window of opportunity
(which may actually not change when Longhorn ships), in that
people are not going to invest in new MS solutions, but right now
budget Linux rigs are flying off of the shelves. Obviously, the
demand is there, but Apple apparently doesn't want to take
advantage of it.

[gruvsyco]

Originally posted by beaker
Beos thought so too, and look where it is now.

One major difference though... Beos didn't really have a succesful application base. Apple and Mac OSX do. From the way OSX was designed, apps written natively for it should cross compile just fine. That would pretty much mean you instantly (well, with re-compile) have access to all those native OSX apps on x86-OSX, were it ever to happen.

I would be very interested in OSX on x86.

[beaker]

Originally posted by gruvsyco
One major difference though... Beos didn't really have a succesful application base. Apple and Mac OSX do. From the way OSX was designed, apps written natively for it should cross compile just fine. That would pretty much mean you instantly (well, with re-compile) have access to all those native OSX apps on x86-OSX, were it ever to happen.

I would be very interested in OSX on x86.
Only apps written with the Cocoa API will port fine. Everything that uses Carbon would have to be rewritten. There is alot of stuff written in Carbon because it allowed everyone to port from the old OS9 to OSX much faster. Cocoa only uses Obj-C/Java and Carbon uses C++ so alot of people still used the latter even for new applications because they allready knew C/C++ and didnt want to have to relearn a new programming language.

[CGTalk Moderation]

This thread has been automatically closed as it remained inactive for 12 months. If you wish to continue the discussion, please create a new thread in the appropriate forum.