Cringely: blame Vista's delay on OEMs, Apple to sell OS X for PCs
By Ryan Block 
posted Apr 8th 2006 4:42PM
posted Apr 8th 2006 4:42PM
You've got to love the pundit on their soapbox,
don't you? This week Cringely, whose previous insightful predictions have rung true in Intel buying
Apple and Apple
quitting their iPod business, in his usual roundabout prose blames OEMs like Dell or HP for Vista's delay. He
connects the two by asserting that Microsoft must not have anticipated the buffer / test period required by their
larger OEM partners to get the OS running stably on their boxes before release; thus, since Vista had to go gold long
before launch -- and MS wasn't ready for release to OEMs -- they had to delay so as to give their partners the time
necessary to confidently release Vista boxes. (All of which kind of invokes the hysteron proteron fallacy of the
unproved premise supposing its conclusion). But Cringley's not done: after we're all integrated and settled with our
Macs with Boot Camp either as beta or in Leopard, he'd like us to believe Apple will become a Windows OEM and start
selling Macs with Vista and OS X out of box "if it will help sales." Um, ok, but there are lots of things
Apple could do to increase sales. And what's more, he goes on to suppose Apple will again fork their processor platform
by going to 64-bit Intel chips, which they'll use as a ploy to sell a standalone 32-bit version of OS X to Windows users
for installation on their non-Apple PCs (since you'll no longer be able to get 32-bit Apple boxes). Whoa, Cringely,
you're gonna have to slow things down next week, ok? So many absurd suppositions at once are making our heads hurt a
little.
Well he has a point at one point apple are going to have to go 64 bit.
ugh...
1) apple will at some point release OSX X86 Standalone... it only makes sense.
2) apple will NOT sell a system with both Windows & OSX. What would be the purpose. They are trying to tout their os as the best (which it is) why include a rival.
3) yes they will need to move to a 64bit chip... but that wont happen until need be.
again... all my opinion but whatever.
I don't think this is all that crazy, I hope Apple does release the OS to PC's, I'll switch as long as I can run my current software. Doubt it though, Microsoft will put the pinch on Apple if anything reverse engineers their control on the programming language.
Guys, please, it's "whose," not "who's."
apple will not release osx for pcs at least not yet (they have a monopoly so why give people an excuse to go elsewhere) and the powermac will be 64bit, and as g5s were 64bit the operating system is more than ready for it, plus as osx is so much better than windows at utilizing multi-core processors, as new universal apps appear we should see some interesting bench marks for computers using the same procvessors but different os.
I have been wondering if Apple would be releasing the PowerMac's and the Xserve's (which will probably get renamed to add Mac to the name just like the PowerBooks did) as 64-bit machines or not. For the Xserve it is pretty much a requirement and it would be nice to have a high-end 64-bit PowerMac but it would also be nice to have a lower end PowerMac with Core Duo and/or Core Quad options. I would be perfectly happy with a 2+ GHz Core Duo PowerMac (especially if it could be upgraded to a Core Quad at a later time). Most of the stuff that I do won't see much of an improvement on a 64-bit chip but I would like to have a machine with some expandability. The Intel iMac is pretty nice but I would like to be able to toss in a better GPU at a later date. We begged and begged for the Mac mini for years and finally got it, now we need to beg for some lower-end PowerMac's starting around $1400 or so.
I believe Apple WILL sell systems with the option of dual-boot. It only makes sense. They want more market share, and they are never going to get it at this rate. At the current rate of growth it will take 20 years for Apple to make a dent in Dell's sales numbers. Start selling Windows OEM on dual-boot boxes? They'll double or triple sales in a year, and increase every year thereafter at a far greater rate than they ever could without it.
Gaming drives the home user industry, people. OSX is not and will not ever be a viable gaming platform until there is market penetration beyond 3-5%.
If the truth is as the belief among Mac users and Apple staff, that OSX is superior, then giving people a choice isn't a gamble, it's an investment. Gamers will buy Macs with Windows, use OSX, fall in love and only boot Windows when they need to frag something.
Unless of course you Apple fans don't think the OSX user experience is that good...
WHy doesn't Apple just release the source code for OSX to the Open Source community. That way they can stick it to Microsoft AND Linux at the same time!
The first thing that steve jobs did when he took over was '86' those mac clones and decimated any thoughts of licensing the mac os to third parties. DO we remember? he's very adament about this. if the Mac OS is ever sold to third parties, it will be the decline of apple hardware sales!
Not gonna happen
Because that is a very foolish move in the business world Torontoguy... OSS makes no sense if you're in it to make money, and that's exactly what apple are in it for!
Increasing the number of units sold is one mindset and incresing the number of loyal customer is another. Making machines with dual boot will result in both as Mac users know what it is and how good it is compared to PCs. Also people who are new to Mac but find it easy on PCs will find Mac much more interesting. It happens or not but my believe is "it should happen".
Okay, here's my crackpot theory:
1. The site http://www.osx86project.org/ was set up very soon after the Intel switch occurred.
2. The guys there had very little trouble getting the dev kit Intel OS X running on stock PC hardware: the so-called TPM protection was broken with a single line of code, almost has if it was there only as a token to qualify for DMCA protection.
3. For the past 9 months, the site has been actively updating their Wiki on hardware (motherboards, processors, cards) that work.
4. The site was taken down briefly when it linked directly to Maxxus's patch to get the Intel iMac install disk working on any PC, but appeared back a day later with the links removed and everyone happy.
5. Maxxus has revealed that the latest protection amounted to a poem...
Conclusion:
Apple doesn't mind *that much* if technically-minded people go to the trouble getting OS X running on stock PCs, but they do mind if it is made *too easy* for the average sap to do it.
Why? Because they're happy these hackers are laying the groundwork in testing all the hardware which works, find the weak spots, and show what needs to be done in terms of writing drivers.
All good groundwork for ultimately releasing a boxed OS X.
And if I had "X" as a middle initial, I might even point out where http://www.osx86.com/ resolves to.
Apple will not sell OS X for X86. They will not sell a dual booting machine with Windows preinstalled [or as part of the install discs].
Jobs and Apple have always believed their product to be superior. They take great pride in their product, and have never let that pride fail. They know in their hearts that if users had a choice to start from scratch [which no one does, be it for dependent software reasons, or the fact that they are used to Windows] they would choose OS X over Windows.
They will NEVER succumb to business pressure, ESPECIALLY not when their market share has risen over the past 5 years, and allow their product to be out-shone by offering Windows, out of the box, on the same machine as OS X, nor will they support the use of Windows on their machines. Not when they believe in their hearts that their product is much better [and they do]
They have about 8 months until Leopard is released. All they have to do between now and then is let the media build the hype about Boot Camp abilities built into Leopard [which has already started - my grandparents, who own a mac mini, but wouldn't have a clue who Steve Jobs is, knew about Boot Camp as soon as it was released]. A press leak in 6 months to say that it is definitely built in, another one a month later saying that it will not only be Dual Booting, but it can run as VMWare, and another one a week or so before launch saying that full integration of Windows software [using a compatibility layer similar to Classic] will be available in Leopard.
That's what's going to get everyone's attention. That's what will give them their double-digit market share. If I had to bet, I'd say a brand new mini will be introduced at the keynote [for consumers] along with a new iteration of MacBook Pros [brand new design, not just upped specs]. They'll all be available right now, and they'll all be able to run Windows Software inside OS X.
Not gonna happen. Either way. OS X will not run on commodity boxes because Apple needs hardware profits. Apple will not become a Windows OEM (even for dual boot purposes) because then they would have to provide some level of Windows support.
JimK, you know me from one of your other sites :)
I disagree, Apple will NEVER sell dual boot systems with XP (or any Windows version). If they sell it, they have to support it. That's how OEM MS OSes work. Apple doesn't want to be burdened with supporting a MS OS and their own OS.
You also assume their rate of market growth will be a static amount. I disagree. There are any number of factors that can and will change that. One will be MS not producing, being years behind in releasing their next OS. Another is the switch to Intel and the option for a customer to dual boot. Yet another will be some virtualization or possibly something like WINE. Any of those would have a HUGE impact.
As for gamers, I agree to an extent. I think maybe this move by Apple was bad in the sense that game developers no longer have any reason to port to OS X. On the other hand, gamers have the option to dual boot now. They can very easily install XP on their own.
Just my opinion, but...
One of the few, core reasons that Windows achieved such dominance is that it rose up during a time when licensing your software to run on so many different devices made good financial sense, and because they were exclusively a software company. But times have changed. With the idea of desktop computing being more about a "home media center" for many consumers, now and in the future, it make more sense to present solid state solutions where you control both the hardware and the software as much as possible.
That's why I think Apple will continue the course of owning the hardware and the software, even though in the past, that might have been what relegated them to being a marginal player in the desktop market.
Let's not forget that right now there is one huge problem with getting OS X up and running on current PC hardware: no EFI on shipping Windows machines.
Looking at the work that the OSX86 Project has done, there seems to be workarounds for this, but nothing that at this point is clean enough for a shipping product. Also, the reliance on SSE2 to do a lot of the tasks that AltiVec used to do will also cause huge amounts of confusion among everyday users unless Apple can get the Dell to start adding "Works with OS X" stickers to their new systems.
I love Cringely. Read his book, checked out Nerd TV, have a dvd of Triumph of the Nerds. But he's wrong here. I know Apple will not release OS X for PC's. The elegance you get from total hardware/software integration would be gone. As long as Steve is in charge, it won't happen. Too much pride in his baby.
You guys are right.
If Apple sells OSX as a stand-alone product for any Intel machines, then they will have to forfeit their control over the entire user experience. This control is a huge advantage that the Mac OS has over Windows, and something that Apple is very proud of. When Jobs came back in '97 he got rid of the mac clones, and he's not about to bring them back. This would be a good short-term business strategy, as it would result in more units sold, but it would detract from the loyal customers of Apple hardware.
Also, it does not make sense for Apple to sell their products with Windows pre-installed. If they pre-install Windows on their hardware then new customers will likely stick with Windows as their main OS, and ignore the OSX partition altogether. Also, if they include Windows with every Mac, then they will have to SUPPORT Windows with every Mac. This includes many new problems such as spyware and viruses, which Apple is known for avoiding. This idea may be able to sell a few more Macs, but it would be a huge burden on Applecare / Mac Geniuses (which are already spending too much time dealing with iPod/Windows support) and may cause switchers to avoid OSX, detracting from their over-all user experience.
The current decisions to support dual-booting through Boot Camp, however, allows technically-proficient people (and friends thereof) to take advantage of all of the possibilities that Apple hardware has to offer. Since Apple is not selling Windows with its computers, and warning Boot Camp users of potential problems, they are not responsible for the bugs and loopholes in XP, and therefore they do not have to include support for Windows in Applecare. Since Boot Camp is still a semi-technical procedure, it allows skilled users to be more productive with their Macs, but does not open the door for Windows viruses and spyware to attack every Mac on the market.
Also, like Harrison said, it seems probable that Apple will incorporate this new ability deeper into OSX. We've seen Apple "borrow" ideas from Watson, Konfabulator, and Quicksilver before, and I wouldn't be surprised if Apple already has Parallels ( http://www.engadget.com/2006/04/06/parallels-provides-xp-on-mac-in-virtual-machine/ ) in its crosshairs.
Harrison - Apple market share is not increasing.. When Steve came back in 1997 it was 5%; in 2002 it was 2,7%, in 2003 2,3%, in 2004 2,0% and last year 2,3%. This year it is also around 2005 numbers.
I don't think it would be a good idea for Apple to sell OSX for PCs. OSX allows Apple to charge a huge premium on their hardware and their profitability is good. If they start offering OSX for PCs because of high competition they won't be able to charge that premium any longer. People would no longer be choosing among iBook and MacBook Pro. They would have 100s of alternatives for a laptop. Apple would either decrease prices or their market share will decrease even more.
Also Apple is currently a niche player. It is not a direct competition for PC manufacturers of Microsoft. If it offers OSX for PCs it will have to deal with the competition. Because of the high competition in PC market big manufacturers like HP, Dell or Lenova are probably more efficient in their supply chains and are very fast introducing new models. They also offer a wider selection of models. It would be a great success for Apple just to keep its 2% market share in such a competitive environment.
Apple needs the cash it generates from hardware to keep its OS up to date. Microsoft has 95% OS share, windwos sales generate much more than enough cash to invest in further development. Without money coming from the hardware sales OSX revenues won't be enough to compete with Microsoft.
ALL of the Robert X Cringleys are morons. Anything they say should be taken with a grain of salt.
Same with that fool Dvorak.
Apple needs the cash it generates from hardware to keep its OS up to date. Microsoft has 95% OS share, windwos sales generate much more than enough cash to invest in further development
---
Uh, so.. you give a terrible example.. MS's OS development is a laughing stock. Thoughts?
Apple is swimming in dough btw.. relatively speaking.. they have almost 10 billion in cash.. MS has 4 times that.. and nothing to show for it
Just to elaborate on post #20 (by lyd), when Jobs returned in 1997 Apple's market share was already in decline. Apple had been on a downturn since the early 1990s and Windows 95 cut it down significantly. When Jobs killed the Mac clone program, that caused market share to decline even more (but was probably a good move since 1998 was Apple's first profitable year since 1993).
The numbers I've read indicate that their share has increased recently after hitting an all-time low in 2003-2004 (depending on whether you look at world-wide or USA). Market-share numbers vary from source to source, but for what it's worth:
Worldwide (peak was 1980 15.8%)
1992 11.9%
1993 10%
1994 8.3%
1995 7.8%
1996 5.2%
1997 3.2%
1998 3.3%
1999 3.3%
2000 2.8%
2001 2.5%
2002 2.3%
2003 2.3%
2004 1.9%
2005 2.3%
United States
1996 6.7% (7.8% with clones)
1997 4.1% (5.4% with clones)
1998 ?
1999 4.4%
2000 3.8%
2001 3.9%
2002 3.5%
2003 3.2%
2004 3.3%
2005 4.0%
Mike - Yes Apple has a bunch of money and Microsoft is late to introduce its new OS. But Apple is not gaining market share in computer market.
They are very succesfull with ipod and music store and they are very profitable. However I don't believe they have a good return on the money they invested in OSX. It only stopped the fall in the market share. Mac users had a really good OS but for windows users OSX is not worth switching.
Windows is very late with Vista and Apple currently have a slightly better OS than PCs. However unless Apple does something big and increase it market share this year their market share will decrease even further when Vista comes.
Apple will invest its money in projects that they hope will have a good return. Apple users have to pay 129 for upgrades now. And it is upgraded pretty frequently. For Windows upgrades are free, and you only have to pay when a new version comes.
Apple won't spend the money it earns from ipod to develop better a better OS. OS X upgrades cost a lot even now and if Apple can't increase its market share they will soon reach price points that are higher than the amount people willing to pay.
Desclock - I am not trying to say Steve or Apple is unsuccessful. I think profitability is very important and by charging premiums on hardware and with ipod Apple is very profitable. Steve did a good job with it. But market share is what matters for software. You develop it once, it costs you millions or billions and than each next copy costs a few cents for the CDs and the box.
Apple is not gaining market share with OSX and might start losing money on its OS. The high price of development is already reflected in computer and upgrade prices. The lower the market share the higher the OS will cost which will end up in even a lower market share and it goes on... If Apple can not increase it market share soon there will be a time it won't be able to justify the investments they make on OS they will just stop upgrading it.
--I saw deslock's post after writing to first part so I might have repeated some of the things I said, sorry for that.
Ugh. More from the clown who used to lie about having a PhD (http://daily.stanford.org/Daily98-99/11-11-1998/news/tempo?page=content&id=4462&repository=0001_article).
I have to say, Cringley is one of the biggest frauds out there posing as a "tech pundit". He has a long history of not only incorrect predictions -- but downright idiotic, and tinged with more than a little "personal vendetta". For years he predicted the death of Apple -- that was his big insight. This at a time when the iMac was released, Steve Jobs was back and OSX was well on it's way to delivering the best OS experience on the planet. Anyone even remotely clued in to what was happening at Apple knew things were not in a "death spiral" but head way, way up.
THEN in a hush-hush scandal, Cringley claimed to have wired his house from a WiFi connection several miles away, by placing some sort of "repeaters" in the trees between the Wifi connection and his house. Several people tried to replicate this feat, and nobody could figure out how he did it -- or could have. The more people looked into it, the more it became clear his entire claim was a technological fantasy presented as the truth.
Cringley is often "food for though" but his tendency to lie, brag, exaggerate and just plain make things up gives him zero credibility. And if you follow his predictions, you'll see they are often dead wrong and usually grandiose and off the mark. Cringley LOVES to be the "tech guru priest" informing all us little people about the grand trends in technology, but it's mostly smoke, mirrors, ego and delusion.
by the way, great picture for the story
second, dude is probably right, by the fault of the largest software developer [Microsoft], it is probably due to OEM lack of readiness.
third, you do not go to such a length [however in vain] to discourage the copying of os x to pcs, to turn around and allow it on a 32 bit machine. jobs put a stop to cloning years ago, and you wont see that same style manuever occur under him again, for the same reasons. what temporal cash flow for 32 bit would be worth the hassle until the eventual mainstream move to 64 bit?
"Apple will invest its money in projects that they hope will have a good return. Apple users have to pay 129 for upgrades now. And it is upgraded pretty frequently. For Windows upgrades are free, and you only have to pay when a new version comes."
What the # are you talking about? How many new features come in service packs? Please....
Apple is at least a generation ahead of MSFT, if not two in terms of OS features and abilities.
Upgrades are free? When was this, are you talking about Service Packs, where they finally learn to lock their backdoor ports? Or give you a firewall? Oh my... the lies.
This is an interesting line of thought, one that I have been pondering since the intel-apple announcement a while ago - Apple absolutely HAS to be researching a PC-Boxed version of OSX. There's not two ways about it - if they're going to release the software to make Windows run on an iMac, then they are definitely well on the way to going the other way. Think about it - the market, the public, the press - everything is ripe for it.
Seriously...if Apple were to fire a salvo at MS by offering OSX for x86 based architecture, it would, in short order, have the PC market flipped on it's head. Jobs doesn't think computers are for everyone, but he does think everyone should have computers that are easy to use, and he can acheive that with OSX for the $200 PC's that are out there. Within 5 years, I bet the market would be split 50-50 between OSX and Vista.
This Cringely fellow sounds like a nutjob.
Re: #24 Posted at 3:14PM on Apr 9th 2006 by lyd
********************************************
"Desclock - I am not trying to say Steve or Apple is unsuccessful. I think profitability is very important and by charging premiums on hardware and with ipod Apple is very profitable. Steve did a good job with it. But market share is what matters for software. You develop it once, it costs you millions or billions and than each next copy costs a few cents for the CDs and the box.
Apple is not gaining market share with OSX and might start losing money on its OS. The high price of development is already reflected in computer and upgrade prices. The lower the market share the higher the OS will cost which will end up in even a lower market share and it goes on... If Apple can not increase it market share soon there will be a time it won't be able to justify the investments they make on OS they will just stop upgrading it."
********************************************
In your post (#20) you said that Apple's market share is not increasing and you provided some numbers since Jobs returned to back that up. I was simply pointing out that it had already been declining for years at that point (but that Jobs added to that decline by killing off the Mac clones program).
But the crux of my post was to show that Apple's share has actually increased slightly in the last couple years (you'd said that it hasn't).
I am now curious about your post #24 vs your post #20. I agree with you in post #20 about Apple needing to sell hardware as that's where it gets its cash. I even I supported your argument by pointing out that Apple returned to profitability in part because Apple killed the clones program. It seems to me that licensing OS X would potentially have the same affect of cutting into Apple's hardware profits, but that's speculation on my part.
Anyway, in post #24, you're now making the argument that Apple might start losing money if it does "not increase its market share soon". That goes against historical evidence since they returned to profitability in 1998 and have been profitable since (despite their market share continuing to drop until 2003-2004).
Why do you think that Apple needs more market share? Windows Vista has the potential of cutting down Apple's market share, but isn't it presumptuous to say one way or the other until Vista comes out in 2007?