Jobs says: Three PC makers are hitting me up for OS X
By Peter Rojas 
posted February 10th 2005 10:21AM
posted February 10th 2005 10:21AM
Bombshell-lovin' Stevie J. reveals plenty in a recent in-depth interview he did with Fortune mag, but the one that
really got our juices flowing was when he drops that "three of the biggest PC makers" are trying to convince him to
license OS X for use in their machines, because their customers are "sick of the security problems that go with Windows
and tired of waiting for Longhorn." We'd bet that at least one of those companies is Sony, but he doesn't tell us what
we really want to know: whether he said yes.
[Via Mac Rumors]
Apple should not do this & they won't. maybe those manufacturers should just make PPC systems & collaborate/consult with apple on engineering, technology, & design. or if they do the same but on intel systems then maybe... well, no... but it's interesting to think about.
but ultimately, bad idea. (if u were apple) why associate the #1 brand with pc's?
i was gonna write a long post addressing the haters but whats the point. I wonder though how many of you have used anything besides windows (and when i say used, i mean familiar enough to efficiently use the platform as ur primary pc)? not as many as there ought to be... some choice u made, huh?
anyway this will never stop, u can't reason with stubborn ignorance, misinformation, & fud.
as far as marketshare goes... who cares?! apple's doing fine and i, as a user, do not feel any adverse effects from low marketshare. also, don't be stupid enough to talk as if marketshare is proportional to how good something is. computers (& other tech) aren't quite like other commodities, right?
and low marketshare will keep macs virus/spyware/malware/adware free forever (since how secure an OS is has nothing to do with it... right?)
I'd love to see it. I don't want to part with my windows just yet.
I'd love to see a pc that would be able to handle both windows and osx much like virtual pc handling multiple operating systems.
I'd like it to be a true dual OS platform. But hey; If I have two seperate Hard drives; one with windows and one with osx and the ability to boot to either; that wouldn't be too bad neither. I love digital performer and Logic as well as final cut pro; i'd buy osx in a heartbeat because of the software it already supports.
It's laughable to read that some are predicting all of this burgeoning success for the mac based upon its success on college campuses or how busy their retail stores are.
First, macs are supposed to be big on college campuses; they are designed to appeal to that crowd and always have had a strong niche in the education market.
Second, the fact that their retail stores are packed means nothing. They have relatively few of them and they are all in affluent shopping areas. The one in my city is in a very affluent mall, and is always busy. I like to go there frequently. But the Tiffany's in the mall is always busy too, as is the Gucci store, etc. That doesn't mean that Tiffany's or Gucci is about to become a mass market phenom.
I love Apple, but it's really just a niche product. A very nice niche product, a very lucrative niche. One of the other commenters on this thread compared them to a Porsche in automobiles, and I think that's a good analogy. There is Ford and GM for the masses, and there is Porsche, BMW, Mercedes, for the higher end market. The two do not really compete against each other, except at certain fringes of their respective markets. A BMW may be better than a Chevy, but no one expects sales of BMWs to outpace those of GM, Ford, etc or even come close.
So I give kudos to Apple for what it is, but I don't think it will ever seriously challenge Windows. I also don't think Jobs will want to license the mac OS and give up some of his control over his market.
i dont get it. why go for mac os x when they have a fully useable product in linux? is it all the gloss and apple product magnetism that ipod have generated lately that they try to get in on?
Please stop writing "MAC" in reference to the Macintosh. The correct moniker is Mac. MAC, in computer contexts, stands for media access control, part of the link layer functionality in the IP stack.
#22: Do you think the Mac OS would run on the NASA Spirit & Opportunity Mars rovers? They are PowerPC based?
G5 is competitive with Opteron & Pentium 4, but in notebooks, Pentium M is awfully attractive.
someone wrote " with upwards of 600 million Windows users, not ONE despises Apple enough to write a virus?"
Actually, there have been mac viruses. While not nearly as many as PC viruses, it's inaccurate to assert that there has not even been one mac virus ever created.
My point is this: the overwhelming prevalence of windows machines means that there will be far more hackers creating viruses for windows, and of course, that the network over which they can spread is far greater.
If 98% of computers in the world are windows based, that means the overwhelming number of hackers will be not only trying to write viruses for windows PCs, but using PCs themselves and knowledgeable primarily about PCs. This also means that any virus written will spread far more rapidly and deeply because the network of windows PCs is so much greater. The number of machines in use is a huge factor in how much a virus spreads and thus is even noticed. I mean, how many viruses are written for Macs that just don't get noticed, because they don't spread to enough machines?
Now granted the Mac OS is great, and in some areas better than Windows with regards to security. But the major factor why Windows suffers more from security issues is because of their overwhelming numeric advantage.
I guarantee you if the market share numbers were reversed, macs would suffer from far more security issues, and windows would be seen as relatively trouble free.
Back in the old days of MacOS 9 and beyond there were a bunch of viruses.
These days, there aren't that many (if any). It's not just due to marketshare numbers; hackers have macosx boxes and windows boxes.
MacOS X is just more secure, and the flaws that are there are harder to exploit. It's a lot harder to poke a machine over the network if there isn't anything to poke. They've also learned from watching Microsoft floundering in a sea of crappy code. If you write it well the first time, you can forget about it.
For example, it's unlikely that you'll be able to receive an email, and without you doing anything that email will run some exploit. That's almost a way of life for Outlook users.
What'll get MacOS X are the normal social engineering stuff, like "click on this." Every malware/virus thing will have a user interaction component. Everything asks for admin privs when you install & run an app anyway, so users have been conditioned already.
it would be interesting to see mac osx on a different machine, and i think hp is one of the definite canadites, for a few reasons. one being that hp started to sell the ipod a few months ago. second is that in the last HP catalouge that i got, they blurred out the Winxp logo when showing a computer screen, which is odd becuase they're licensed to sell winxp (and theres even a large disclaimer in the back) so why would they blurr it out when they have permission. third, is in that same catologue they use (an editied image, so theres no ff logo, but u can tell which one it is) firefox as the internet browser 2/3 times when showing a computer on the internet. finally, the recent and abrupt firing of Carly Fiorina, which no one expected and is still in question just a few reasons that point to apple including mac osx on hp comptuers.
however, i do think that the mac platform will loose some of its integrity when being on a plain old computer. as somewone above me said before that the reason mac osx is so sleek is because the sleek computers back it up. the current hp desktop design would not fit well with mac, but thier thin widescreen laptops are another story. if i were jobs, i would wait till the mac mini is out for a year or so, then try to mainstream
You Mac-haters need to get out more. I know, Doom3 and HalfLife2 take up all your time. But please, take a look around once in a while.
In case you didn't know, Apple has ALWAYS kept a PC port of OS X in-house ready to whip out if they ever decide to let it loose on the world.
Second, there are plenty of OS X programs out there besides Pedro's ill-informed claim about their "in-house" paint programs. Sure there are more PC programs, but how many word processors do you need? How many competitors to Photoshop? (That by the way, it's done in-house at Apple as Pedro seems to think.) If you're in real estate, or need Autocad, then by all means use a PC. But for the rest of the planet that isn't complete game fan boys, a Mac does the job just fine and often better than PCs. It's the operating system!
Thirdly, the reason you don't see Mac software at Best Buy is they don't seel Mac software! Get the connection? It's pretty obvious.
I imagine one reason Apple might sell OS X to the big PC manufactuers is the license for OS X server. Spend $1,000 and you get an insustrial-strength server OS that's way easier to administer than Windows or Linux or UNIX, has Apache and many other open-source programs and features, and UNLIMITED CLIENTS!!!! Get that? No MS-fees for extra clients.
As for security, it's a canard that with increasing market share OS X will be come less secure in proportion to that expansion. OS X is inherently more secure than Windows. Now it would become less secure becuase there would be more attacks and more script kiddies and virus writers on its case. But it's built from the core on the most secure OS in general circulation - BSD. Period. Any claims to the contrary have been widely proven to be false.
As for the claim that Apple's market share is declining, I think that's changed too. In just the past quarter they've had an increase in Mac sales of 26 percent! Did Dell increase sales 26 percent? I don't think so. So even if Apple's market share in miniscule, they have six billion in reserves, no debt, record stock price and a significantly improving profit. Yeah, that's a real tough pickle their in... NOT!
As others here have alluded to, one problem with licensing macosx to other vendors is that it does risk losing some of the integrity of the system.
Once you start to merge osx with other hardware, and involve other vendors, you may start to see more problems pop up.
One reason why the macosx has been successful is simply due to the fact that the same company does the software and hardware, and so there is very good integration.
When you start to involve other cooks in the kitchen, watch out.
Can't happen. Would defeat one of the main reasons why Mac is better. Same company designs hardware and software. I'm not gonna put a Ferrari engine into my 1987 Tempo.
I agree it can't be Dell. They spend too much money designing equipment to fail. But the Dell Dimension G5 would be the most powerful ugly as hell computer the world has ever seen!
Someone did a study not long ago (two or three months ago) where they factored out the business market, which buys computers in the thousands in one shot (AT&T recently bought 25,000 machines!). The market outside the enterpise market, Apple has a handy 9%-12% share (depending on who you listen to).
Apple is growing. But as long as the business market is controlled by Microsoft products, they will never gain. They need to turn some enterprise markets over and sell tens of thousands of machines in one sale several times over.
Perhaps that's where Apple could license its X11 software...
You don't have to be Sherlock Holmes to figure out who the three leading computer manufacturers were that approached Jobs about OS X for their machines. The three were Sony, HP, and Gateway. Sony has made it known for years that they wanted to acquire Apple (and Palm) only to be told that Apple wasn't for sale. Sony hates Microsoft with a passion and thus they don't really like the fact that their Vaios ship with Windows and they have to pay the Microsoft tax that gets funneled into paying for the Playstation2's biggest competitor, Microsoft's Xbox. HP is looking for direction and a way to outsell Dell. Same goes with Gateway. With the loss of the Gateway stores (and their stupid abandonment of AMD chips), there is nothing that distinguishes Gateway from Dell other than Dell is insanely profitable. Without the Apple option, all three of these manufacturers/brands are at the mercy of Microsoft and in the shadow of Dell. They need an entire platform switch (which would also give consumers a reason to upgrade) but unless Jobs changes his mind, they won't be able to because Linux is still not a viable Joe Average consumer option. These Apple zealots keep on bringing up the disasterous Mac clones of the 90s as the very reason why Jobs shouldn't license OS X. That argument is not valid. The Apple clones of the 90s were not first tier companies. These three companies are. The former cloners cannibalized Apple Mac sales because they competed for the same customers and did not increase the size of the Mac platform. These three companies will increase the size of the platform because their products would appeal to a larger segment of the market than just the Apple faithful. Of course, my scenario is only if Apple insists that any licensing of OS X happens on PowerPC chips only, and not on x86. This would also be agreeable for Sony since they of course want to push the "Cell" (aka probably the G6) processor and not continue to pay money to Intel or AMD. Apple would also insist that a Sony or an HP would also contributes monies (and pool R&D) for OS X's continued development and not just sponge off Apple's efforts. And like it or not, consumers still remember what happened with Sony's Betamax. The Mac platform would appear much stronger and much more viable to Joe Consumer if more than just Apple made computers based upon this superior operating system. I hope Jobs understands this and proposes a beneficial relationship that brings about a replacement standard to Wintel. I'd also hope he'd test this whole concept with a company like Alienware (or Falcon Northwest) that could bring hardcore gamer respectability to the Mac platform for a change.
Does BMW has 80% market share in US? consummer reports says Hyundai is the most wanted car in US market? comon, things are changing. Apple used to be the unbreakable PC maker in US history. Today's PC trends are changing really fast and you know what? they have to change. otherwise, those major PC makers gonna close their door really soon. most wanted automobile company doesn't make the best car and you all know it. why are you tring to think only with numbers?
The Jeremy: "HP is looking for direction and a way to outsell Dell. Same goes with Gateway."
That has got to be the stupidest thing i've read on here. So your telling me that licensing Apple's operating system is going to give them a weapon to outsell Dell?
Wake up. If OSX was a weapon that could be used to outsell Dell and become the #1 computer manufacturer... Apple would already have been annointed king of the pc world.
Has that happened? I didn't think so.
As for your statement that nothing distinguishes Dell from Gateway? I'd say sales numbers say otherwise. I don't think consumers and corporations have a problem distinguishing who has a better product, service, and support when it comes to DELL vs. Gateway.
DELL is a hugely successful company, Gateway on the otherhand has been through 4 or 5 identity changes in the last 2 years.
How did you feel when you switched from IE to Firefox?
Switching from Windows to Mac OS X makes you feel the same.
Believe me.
I know what Jobs said... He said :
"Pass me that joint and shamalack your arss outa here before I bitch slap you with my iPod !"
It's obvious that many commenters on this thread have not looked at Apple's latest 10-Q/Ks or analyzed recent sales trends in the computer market (especially the consumer and education markets).
That said, Jobs has said that the desktop war is over; Apple doesn't even try to sell to most businesses; businesses who buy over 70% of PCs sold each year. Apple has moved on to a different war; a war that will circle back and greatly affect how businesses market and deliver products and services.
Here's a clue for the future: Since 2000, Apple has been executing superbly on its digital hub strategy for both consumers and businesses. As information moves from text&numbers (MS Office) to rich media (iLife and Pro media apps) over IP networks, Apple is setting itself up to be the preferred brand for fixed and mobile consumption devices, and preferred provider of production and network distribution devices/services. Delivering content like iTMS is just the beginning. And even non-Apple consumption devices (like cell phones) that use Quicktime supported media standards are increasing Apple sales of production devices.
Key buyers of Apple stock understand this (altho many are just buying on momentum alone). Microsoft and Sony recognize what's happening. Because MS has to work with clueless-at-UI-and-marketing device and Windows software partners, it is disadvantaged, but still MS is fighting hard for its proprietary media standards and for IPTV. Sony is disadvantaged because they don't control the OS, suck at writing software, and the whole company is not working as one strategic team.
Apple could strategically license OS X to IBM or Sony for specific devices if it advances the establishment of certain rich media standards. But I don't see them doing it for general-purpose computers.
So come back in 3-5 years to see the result of Jobs' strategy. (Remember Jobs was successful with the Apple II, then was pretty much not involved until 1997,) In the meantime, buy Apple stock.
Kev, what do you mean Jobs wasn't involved with Apple from the point of the Apple II until 1997? How about the original Macintosh? What about the Apple III?
Steve Jobs is brilliant at saying very little, then getting the rest of the world to buzz about his latest non-announcement. He and the PR wizards at Apple are the masters of spin. No one in the branding universe comes close.
And regardless of whether you think OS X will ever show up on non-Apple hardware, it looks like Steve and his denizens have done it again.
The fact that a company with so much unbelievable media play can barely muster 3% of the PC market is, in my opinion, surprising. You figure they'd be able to leverage a few more percentage points out of the drooling masses.
Carmi Levy
http://writteninc.blogspot.com
Apple should sue themselves for spreading these rumors.
To all the people that make the argument that Apple has a smaller market and therefore their OS is not attacked as much. This is an invalid point and has been refluted again and again and again. Same premise would hold true then for Apache vs. IIS BUT most problems does not occur with Apache. If you can't get that through your head then I don't think you'll ever learn.
Does this mean OS X has no exploits or vulnerabilities? NO, absolutely not; it is *harder* for virus writers to find exploits and capitalize on them on the Mac. Apple does a pretty good job of turning off services by default so they are not open holes everywhere for a virus to attack where as Windows by default opens almost all of them.
About Apple being more "expensive". Look, this point has been debunked. Stop living in the 1980's. Apple's hardware is very competitive these days. Unless you're talking about building a machine yourself... and YOU may do it but grandma, grandpa or your next door neighborhood probably doesn't do this. Ask any joe smoe off the street and they are more likely to replace a whole machine every 2 to 3 years vs. adding and upgrading parts every so often.
Instead of just shooting your mouth off and bashing Windows or Macs or Linux, ask what are the legitimate advantages being offered on THAT platform and why YOUR platform doesn't offer the same. Bitch to MS, Apple, or roll up your sleeves and code for Linux to offer the same features or just STFU.
"i dont get it. why go for mac os x when they have a fully useable product in linux?"
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA. Stop, please. You're killing me. I "went" for OS X because things "just work" and I didn't have to attempt to compile, go get a library because it was missing one, compile, try and debug the barf on my screen, lather, rinse, repeat. To be fair, Mandrake is damn slick and I am very happy with it on the machine I have. But my iBook is my primary machine because it just works. XP is pretty cool (though Windows mis-detects my onboard audio as a modem on every third reboot), but OS X has better software out of the box and it all plays very nicely together.
As for declining market share, well, I agree that I have seen the number of Apple laptops increase 10-fold between my first and second years at school, despite my school adamantly refusing to support Macs (including the fact we cannot take exams on them like we can with Windows laptops) and we get no discount on them other than what Apple gives us.
Macs won't take over the world. Hell I'd be suprised if they ever made it to 10% marketshare. But their sales are hardly on the decline.
For those hating on a Mac's lack of hackability, well, I just got tired of it. I hate the time I've wasted dicking around with my PCs (both Linux and Windows (and OpenBSD to be fair)). If you're into modding, more power to you. Me, I've got other things to worry about. I want it to "just work" and I'm willing to pay more for that.
-p-
The Jeremy: Altho Jobs helped create the Mac, he was only with Apple one more year after its introduction so we don't know whether he would've been successful. (I'm not saying that he would've been more successful than Sculley since IBM was so dominant during that time. I'm just saying we don't know.)
Jobs has never been good at selling computers to businesses (except for particular niches), not with the Apple II, III, Mac, or NeXT. And this time around, he's made little effort again (except for the creative and high performance niches). His focus has always been on schools and homes - basically individual users. And that's where he's headed again but he may have learned something about parlaying and extending from one kind of user to another.
To Carmi: The popularly quoted PC worldwide market share numbers have included x86 servers; an area that has been booming since the emergence of the Internet, circa 1997, and more recently Linux. We are discussing a worldwide market growing in sales from 150 to 180 million units (including those servers), where huge percentages of purchases are simply business replacements (1999-Y2K cycle, followed by 2003-2004 cycle), where Microsoft is the keeps-my-job-safe and dominant monopolist OS, and where the media reports on Apple as the "beleaguered" company nearing its end. An Apple product using such a non-standard OS in such a market would be lucky to survive (have you noted what has happened to all other non-standard desktop computer OSes since Microsoft Windows 3.1?). And Apple was "lucky" for without the MS $150M investment and Office commitment in 1997 and the iMac in 1999, Apple probably would've died.
Now that Apple has shed the "beleaguered" title, and now that consumer electronics are coming over the "river" to use Internet-delivered-content, Apple has begun to sell way more Macs to the "drooling masses." But for Apple to gain a percentage point (1.5 to 2 million units) would mean it needs 50% growth in units sold. 50% more is significant. Give Apple a year or two, and if they keep executing, they'll be there (even without sales to businesses!)
Let me be the first to bust the PC zealots bubble: if you haven't used a Mac in the past 2-3 years (that being a modern Mac running OSX), DO NOT COMMENT ABOUT THEM. End of story.
As for the "security through obscurity" myth: regardless of what side of the fence you stand on, the truth is, Mac has less of a security threat! Why would you NOT want that? Why would you even hold up for Billy and his band of thugs? Now they are going to charge you for anti-virus software? HA! You truly get what you deserve.
How many people do you know that have switched from Mac to PC? That's what I thought.
@gary... (#75)
Hate to burst your bubble..... but my highschool uses a mac network Every computer is an imac or a G5 tower. I have managed to access various things and change report cards, personal details for people and even payrolls (completely removing the principal was very amusing). If you think i'm joking i'm not. They have an administrator hired full time to maintain that system, he knows what he is doing and i could still break into it. It only got easier when they allowed remote access. (through the net as opposed to ethernet only) Mac's are like anything. If people are allowed to use it enough they will find a way around it. Its why DRM will fail, its why software piracy exists and any other number of things.
I'm not saying PC's are better. I'm not saying that Mac's are. Both are computers. They do their job, who cares.
By the way, i hate the whole white thing, i don't think it looks nice at all. I'd much rather have my black equipment. Hence the reason i have a G5 tower rather than an imac or whatever.
In this forum we've got mac fanboys and PC diehards and all sorts of other weird wacky and wonderful geeks and business people.
Some people are suited by windows (I.e, people using a pocket PC or a tablet PC or people in business positions) other people are suited by OSX (I.e, You, and plenty of others in this article)Further others will be happy to have the best of both worlds and use both.
There will always be a market for both (and others assuming they can eek out a marketable position). Even if apple made the worst computer ever made i'm sure some in this thread would defend it. Even if windows totally screwed longhorn i'm sure some would buy it (And many more still would pirate it). Its your choice, be glad you don't live in a crappy communist country.
Re; Software Amount. Does size matter?
Sure the Best Buys, CompUSA's and Circuit Citys PC software sections are larger than the MAC's...and Chrysler makes the best selling minivan. So what?
Does the fact there is more software out for PC really affect the "average consumer"? It should be acknowledged that one can produce similar work on both platforms, with the end result indistingusable as to the platform used. The difference to the "mac fanatic" is that in many areas this is easier to do, and more productive on the MAC platform.
Does one need 16 word processors to choose from, or 250 drawing packages, or as one observer wrote virus scanners. In most categories of software the MAC platform has a top-tiered product available, at the same price (MS Office, Adobe Photoshop, InDesign, etc...), and at the basic consumer level the MAC is pre-loaded with a suite of software (iLife) that in most aspects far exceeds the more costly alternative available in the Windows world (wrt ease of use, common interface, interoperability). There are gaps in CAD and Games, but sheer numbers of available product do not linearly correlate with usage.
In my experience most MAC users use more of their computers power because the elegance of the software and integration allows them to concentrate on the matter at hand, not the computer, drivers, printers, networking, etc...
Example: I just put together a 2 hour compilation DVD of IP5 edited photos, QT exported Slideshows (Ken Burns dissolves set to match timing of imported iTunes songs, from the iTMS) and QT movie trailers with the slick "Motion" template Travel from iDVD. When I showed it to co-workers, the 6 PC users kept asking questions on how I did it, and that I could do it. The 2 Mac users while interested in the newest software templates, and other features of the 4th and 5th generation software, but were not as impressed because they also do it, and know how easy and available it is, with the integrated hardware/software provided on their Macs WITHOUT going to CompUSA, or BestBuy to buy software or hardware.
Steven Fisher- Absolutely, PC is an acronym for Personal Computer, while "MAC" is said Mac, or Macintosh.
Amen,
For my first part, I was just saying, if you haven't used a modern Mac using OSX, don't comment on it, because I felt that the "turtle-neck wearing" cliche had little to do with the validity of Macs and was probably spewed by someone who has never honestly sat down with a Mac for any length of time.
Ok, I'm not one for the real technical aspects of computers. All I know is that I don't get the following: pop-ups, spyware, or viruses. I don't run anti-virus and I have no problems. NONE. I'm not saying that Macs or PC's are better, because obviously they both have distinct advantages because of the situation. I think the "security through obscurity" myth might be slightly true, but I think it's more of an excuse for Windows users to complain than it is anything else. I mean, obviously more users means more hackers. I just don't like that Windows users can't just come out and say, for whatever reason, our code is being hacked to pieces while Macs run relatively virus-free. NO, they can't say that. They have to make apologies and excuses as to why.
Either way, to each their own. I just don't like it when some guy who has probably had little experience on a Mac act like he's been using it for years and he despises it.
Just checked this real quick to see what I could find:
(Market Share for Q2 of 04)
Dell : 32.9%
HP : 19.3%
Gateway (Merged) : 5.6%
IBM : 5.6%
Apple : 3.7%
Others : 32.9%
http://www.itfacts.biz/index.php?id=P1276
Acer might be above apple this year, i hear they are doing well (buy stock!)
So according to this the "big three" would be HP, Gateway and IBM, not Sony then I suppose.
I see a lot of comments from people saying things like "you guys that think Apple is gaining market share are fooling yourselves." I am a development manager in sillicon valley. Myself along with my entire team have switched to macs. In fact, all of the best developers I know in the valley are sporting macs these days. Consumers almost always follow the developers in the long haul. As long as Apple continues to put out great products, they will hold the developers vote. It's very hard to find Windows developers these days... everyone is Linux, Perl, Java, etc.. I really do think MS is losing their stranglehold here. I believe it to be just a matter of time. Apple seems well positioned to help speed that along.
Max: MAC is not an acronym for Macintosh or Mac. It is, however, an acronym for Media Access Control and a few other things... none of which are a Macintosh. The correct spelling is Mac, that simple.
I made no comment at all on PC. However, I maintain that anyone who can not spell "Mac" has nothing worth reading to say on their value or their market.
@gary (#81)
Sorry, i misunderstood you. I own a G5 tower and various intel and AMD boxes :P so i totally agree that having both is distinctly better than having one or the other. I actually think it would be nice to dual boot my AMD boxes with OSX/Win XP so that i can still play all my games/use my windows software and ignore the virus problems (i'm not trying to claim that PC's are virus free.... That would make me stupid or on crack)
I am a college student majoring in art, and had been an apple fan since the imacs and blue and white g3's came out (I still have my G3). I now use an ibook G3 for illustration, and I love everything about it. I like the symplistic, elegant look of it, and the beautiful aqua style. I believe pc's look to bulky to have os X (like a fat hobo with a tuxedo [?]) it just does not go with them. OS X should remain mac exclusive, its part of what makes mac computers a macintosh.
The only disadvantage about apple, is that it does lack some programs made for windows only, but most of them are videogames, unless Steve is desperate to have Grand Theft Auto Vice City running on a mac, I dont see any reason why he should accept such an offer.
... I ve never seen or heard the words "virus" and "mac" in the same sentence.
Quoting Jeff below because this comment is so far down the line here. But my question is does the fact that IBM is going to sell it's laptop division off have any implication on this?
"". Posted Feb 10, 2005, 10:30 AM ET by Jeff
IBM has got to be another one, though they wouldn't be licensing OS X for the consumer market. Maybe they think it's ripe for the corporate market, where Apple has historically not done well at all; maybe IBM sees an opportunity there (especially if security is the issue). IBM already has a lot of Unix experience and they continue to sell and support it, plus they *make* the PowerPC chip so producing an OS X machine would be no stretch for them. And they have a good relationship with Apple already.""
The mac IS a niche computer, designed primarily for the graphics/publishing industry and thats still where its roots lie. You have to look at the bigger picture here. If the designers and publishers use Macs to produce their artwork on particular software, then the printers will have to have the same software and computers. The industry is too big to switch to unrealiable and complicated Windows systems - true PC are cheaper, but there's a reason - most of them are built like shit. The fact remains that Apple make very reliable, well made and technologically efficient products that help us (designers) get our work done and make money.
I don't think Apple will licence the OS to anyone else - I hope they don't, because I think it would devalue the Apple brand if they did. People buy Apple because it's the tool for the job.
The "niche" market to which everyone here seems to refer has one thing in common: simplicity. A lot of the Windows diehards are reluctant to give up what they call "choice" in favor of simplicity.
It is true that OSX provides a lot of in-house software that beats the pants off of MSware, but the flip side is that in some cases, that may be your *only* choice. If Apple were Microsoft, there'd be antitrust lawsuits before you can say "Steve Jobs." Look at the lawsuit against MS for their bundled Media Player software, or the IE fiasco in the mid-nineties.
Some people like choice, and have to deal with the inherent interoperability challenges that come with that. It *is* a testament to Microsoft that considering the millions of different PCs in the market, Windows will run on any of them (properly configured.) OSX, I believe, will freak out at that hardware diversity given the chance, and will probably develop as many problems as Windows has to deal with. Not to mention that drivers written for OSX tend to be buggy (not that Windows drivers aren't.)
My personal Windows PC does not have any spyware, adware, security holes, or extraneous crap running. Granted, I am a power user/developer, but PCs can function just as simply as Macs if given the proper configuration and learning. That's the sacrifice you make to get a lower-cost, interoperable product.
I know a lot of Appleheads who don't own a turtleneck, and swear by Apple on their personal or corporate networks. I personally love Macs and the elegance of OSX, but have hesitated to use both because of PC interoperability issues. Were they to make DP or Logic (or if PT wasn't so friggin' expensive) for PC I would use both in a heartbeat, given the *choice.* I have used Macs in production work for years, OS9 and X, but I have experienced many problems that I have not in the PC world, and support for Mac is not nearly as widespread (Appleheads would contend that's because it isn't needed.)
In the business world, OSX server cannot succeed unless it is proven superior to Linux. Server ops typically don't care about the slickness of an OS because many of them were weaned on either DOS or Unix. Stability and security are the core issues here, but I will add to another college student here that OSX server is fairly easy to hack into. That's why it is typically used on internal networks such as Pixar's cluster farms (ignoring the fact that they are owned by Stevie Wonder.) Besides the fact that Linux and its applications are free, *if you can deal with the OS*...
Bottom line, I love Macs *and* PCs, but can't always deal with the Mac's closed system.
I couldn't agree more with comments above relating to Apple's attractiveness to Sony:
Imagine you make the best still and digital cameras on Earth and you have to tie them into a Wintel framework? You're transitioning to HD and the only software company to take this seriously (at consumer level) is Apple?
Corporates HATE uncertainty: when is Longhorn due again?
Any manufactuerer that builds an ounce of added value into its system is going to view OS X with excitement. Increasingly Windows is the weak link in the PC experience. Who makes a real attempt at style? Sony and further back HP. Both will have to ditch Intel if they wish to raise their software experience to the level of their hardware build.
Tiger's launch will further salivate the watching pack. But I suspect we'll have a big announcement from Apple/Sony before then. Hang on to that Apple stock.
OR MAYBE: I have an idea. Instead of having Sony and those companies run OS X on their PCs, how about, Sony and those companies start making COMPATIBLE MACS. (You know, ditch the Pentium4 and get the PPC.)
I dont want Jobs to sell OS X licenses. I also dont like Jobs selling iPod license to HP, but it already happened. I agree, what made a Mac a Mas is the hardware combined with the software. And that must continue.
OK Let me set something stright OS-X is the best operating system ever invented. I have never had it crash, granted I am not running it on a out dated Mac.(anything more then 3-4 years old) The most that ever happens is that one program might lock up all that is required is that you force quit it and everything is fine. I can't remember the last time I had to restart my mac, unless required to by installing software. Unlike my PC of shit. Which is brand new frequently updated and crashes twice a week.
Now forgetting all that. OS-X comes with iMovie, an awesome free video editing program you can edit everything from VHS to MiniDV to HiDefinition Video on it. It is easy enough for my 60 year old mom to use. I prefer Final Cut Pro. Next it has iDVD the easiest to use DVD authoring program. Also Free. Also on the list of free software is Garageband, it does everything Protools lite does and more, not to mention all these programs an older adult can use without much instruction. (I want to say little kid, but it is much more impressive when older people can use computers without any problems. We throw in iWork Keynote for office apps. This machine has all the software the average consumer will ever need built right in to it.
The only flaws with the mac is that it is not the number one software OS. So there is not as much software for it. If OS-X were to be available on a major scale, all that would change. Not to mention it has alot of software. You won't see it on the shelf of Compusa. The only thing lacking is the game department. I wish they would get together with sony again and let the mac handle PS2 and PS2 games. You could pay $80 for the software that lets you play PS1/PS2/PS3 games. Which would save sony money anyways, becuase the lose money on the units anyways. This is the deal Jobs should make if Sony wants use of the OS.
Bottom line unless you have a mac you have no right to say Windows is better is any way. WIndows doesn't have to be good, because you have to use it. OS-X has to be good or Apple would go under.
I think Jobs lies.
Some points on post 93. :
"OK Let me set something stright OS-X is the best operating system ever invented."
- Thank god you've settled the debate!
"Now forgetting all that. OS-X comes with iMovie, an awesome free video editing program you can edit everything from VHS to MiniDV to HiDefinition Video on it"
- HIDEF on iMovie are you for real and which slot does that VHS go in, you still require an A-D convertor, please dont start lying to beef up your argument!
And yes i am a power user and do use macs everyday as well as PC's, also own an iPod!
>AF
I own a mac and yes, PC's are better :)
To #96 PC's are better?.....OH, REALLY?!?..that's gotta be the biggest load of crap EVER.
I'm a PC user I've grown up with the damn things and I sure as heck don't wanna buy another one. My first OS was Windows ME. As we all know ME is from heck. What does this show about Microsoft and their greed? Thier top priority is $$$ then comes consumer satisfaction.
I AM going to buy a Mac PowerBook for my next computer and I have spent time looking at both worlds of computers. I know how to take apart my computer blindfolded. To be honest I wish I didn't because that usually means something is wrong. Apple's computers are the best as far as I'm concerned, especially when it comes to the integration between their OS and the hardware.
If you add up all of the time I've ever spent on a Mac it's been about...oh, 10 minutes. Those 10 minutes were bliss.
Since having ME corrupt my directory I've upgraded to XP. I'm a frigin Windows user supporting Mac! WHAT DOES THAT SAY!?!?....yes, yes I am nuts but HONESTLY!...
If you want to use OS X you buy a Apple. For the rest of the world is Windows the standard. everyone knows how it works and nobody want a PC with the Apple OS on it.
Apple could release a version of their OS for the PC market ie PC OS X?
Hardware vendors mainly write the code for the hardware to be used within Windows. This could be the same with apple. Some of the software will be written with Microsoft for the major vendors ie ATI, Intel etc.
The problem with the 3rd party macs was the pricey licensing issues. You look at PC prices 10 years ago and you will see that prices have dropped steeply.
Regarding the comment about companies running critical DOS applications. Im sure I read some where that the latest version on Win XP 64 will no longer run 16 bit DOS Applications. If these applications had to be re-written, this could open up opportunities for Apple if they were to release an OS for PC's. At the end of the day Apple is more secure for now. Apples market share isn't going to jump to 90% al of a sudden and make it more vunerable.
Most offices using Macs will be running on MS Office for Mac. Microsoft isn't tied to keep on making products for Macs. People just use MS software for migration purposes with other platforms when using Macs. If Microsoft was to do this it could either open up new oportunities for other software companies for die hard mac users. (Although I bet die hard Mac users don't use MS software) or it could mean that Apple could lose out on a certain market share of the MS software users. More likely it's Mac Mini target group.
Um number 95 user name: onuo it is called iMovieHD hmmmn why do you think that is? Could be because it edits HD? Maybe you need an upgrade. Also if you have a decent DV camera you don't need an A/D converter. You just copy it to your camera then capture it through firewire. OH wait you do have to buy a firewire cable first. OH NO!!
-Hart