Isn't this what Apple is doing wrong in regards to OS X?

[IJ Reilly]

I think they meant the hardware.

Maybe, but I am pointing out that the real differences aren't in the hardware, they're in the OS. Line up ten PCs from ten PC-makers, and no matter how different they may look, they all work in precisely the same way.

Yes, but you have to realize that this is apple's fault. Apple doesnt let anyone use their OS unless you buy their comparatively expensive hardware. You cant blame the other computer manufacturers for lack of OS choices when Apple is to blame for a large part of it.

It's not Apple's fault, not in the least. The IBM-PC compatible market evolved in its own, unique and peculiar way. This had nothing at all to do with Apple, and everything to do with historical accidents which befell IBM and benefited Microsoft, and beyond that, to Microsoft's illegal anticompetitive practices.

 

[hulugu]

Yes, but you have to realize that this is apple's fault. Apple doesnt let anyone use their OS unless you buy their comparatively expensive hardware. You cant blame the other computer manufacturers for lack of OS choices when Apple is to blame for a large part of it.

What?

The other PC makers have utterly failed to bring another OS to market. IBM tried and failed dramatically with O/S 2 and Dell has consistently hedged its bets with Linux. HP continues to play with touch, but they're also unwilling to bring this idea out into the rest of the system leaving it in a small niche part of the system similar to Apple's use of Front Row.

Apple shouldn't be blamed for the asymmetry of the PC market just because they're unwilling to fall on their own sword for the likes of Dell and HP. If Dell wants another OS besides Windows, they should build it.

As IJ noted, the PC industry organized itself around the IBM/Microsoft model and has been happily rooting in this model for more than two decades.

 

[IJ Reilly]

Some companies are obviously more broad-spectrum than others though. Sony and Panasonic sell everything from consumer handy-cams to full-sized professional cameras used for movies and TV shows. Dell sells everything from uber-cheap boxes to tricked-out Alienware rigs targeted at big gamers w/big wallets. GM spans the range from econobox to luxury SUV. Apple, like BMW or Oakley, aren't nearly as tiered as those companies are. Apple doesn't compete in the how low can you go marketplace that Dell mastered.

Not to repeat what I wrote above, all of that "variety" of PCs sold by Dell is distinguished only by the hardware. They all work the same way. To me, this is an important and often overlooked distinction.

The other products you mention are made by healthy, competitive markets. The PC industry has never really been one of those -- and it shows.

When talking about operating systems yes, but when talking about hardware there is more competition. I can choose from Dell or HP or Falcon NW or just build my own machine using a combination of components (case, video card, motherboard, CPUs, sound card, network card, etc.,) that's not available from any computer manufacturer. Of course the end goal of that hardware is most likely to run Windows, but is that much different than the end goal of almost all cars to drive on the same streets and highways?

If you're going to use the cars on streets analogy, then perhaps computers on the internet is the better match since that is the real, common standard today. The reason you can obtain your PC hardware from so many sources is because nobody owns the architecture.

 

[hulugu]

Not to repeat what I wrote above, all of that "variety" of PCs sold by Dell is distinguished only by the hardware. They all work the same way. To me, this is an important and often overlooked distinction.

The other products you mention are made by healthy, competitive markets. The PC industry has never really been one of those -- and it shows....

Exactly, every personal computer regardless of manufacturer works using the x86 architecture now. Of course, Apple was the singular iconoclast for a bit, but the market consistently punished them for this difference.

To abuse our car analogy, everyone is selling cars using the same V6 engine design.

 

[LethalWolfe]

Not to repeat what I wrote above, all of that "variety" of PCs sold by Dell is distinguished only by the hardware. They all work the same way. To me, this is an important and often overlooked distinction.

I guess we just have a difference of opinion about whether the difference in hardware is a difference that makes a difference. To me it does. Different hardware effects how the machine performs, what tasks it can/can't do, and that effects the end user experience. For basic things like word processing and e-mail the hardware doesn't really make a difference as long as there are no conflicts. For gaming, video editing, 3D animation, etc., the hardware definitely makes a difference. There is a variety of hardware that all conforms to the same basic specifications, but that doesn't mean they all perform at the same level.


Lethal

 

[NoSmokingBandit]

What?

The other PC makers have utterly failed to bring another OS to market. IBM tried and failed dramatically with O/S 2 and Dell has consistently hedged its bets with Linux. HP continues to play with touch, but they're also unwilling to bring this idea out into the rest of the system leaving it in a small niche part of the system similar to Apple's use of Front Row.

Apple shouldn't be blamed for the asymmetry of the PC market just because they're unwilling to fall on their own sword for the likes of Dell and HP. If Dell wants another OS besides Windows, they should build it.

As IJ noted, the PC industry organized itself around the IBM/Microsoft model and has been happily rooting in this model for more than two decades.

Im just saying that you cant hold the manufacturers like Dell/HP/etc at fault for not offering software choices when there arent any. 3% of people use linux, so its really not worth trying there. A lot of people want os x, but they cant get it on anything but a mac due to Apple's outdated restrictions, yet this is cause to blame the likes of Dell?

 

[pdjudd]

Im just saying that you cant hold the manufacturers like Dell/HP/etc at fault for not offering software choices when there arent any. 3% of people use linux, so its really not worth trying there. A lot of people want os x, but they cant get it on anything but a mac due to Apple's outdated restrictions, yet this is cause to blame the likes of Dell?

So because the problem is really difficult to solve makes putting themselves in a corner 20 years ago by going with Microsoft not their fault? Riiight. They made a bad choice 30 years ago and they are paying for it now. That's what is happening. The difficulty or viability of the solution does not change the fact that there are solutions. The PC makers were not interested in a solution 20 years ago and effetively made it impossible. Exactly what does that have to do with Apple?

 

[dejo]

A lot of people want os x...

And why do you think this is? I'd say because Apple has created an attractive alternative to Windows. So, what is preventing any PC manufacturer from doing the same?

 

[NoSmokingBandit]

*slaps forehead*
I forgot i was dealing with people who think tying software and hardware is a good thing!
No point arguing when the fundamentals of our opinions are polar opposites.

 

[IJ Reilly]

I guess we just have a difference of opinion about whether the difference in hardware is a difference that makes a difference. To me it does. Different hardware effects how the machine performs, what tasks it can/can't do, and that effects the end user experience. For basic things like word processing and e-mail the hardware doesn't really make a difference as long as there are no conflicts. For gaming, video editing, 3D animation, etc., the hardware definitely makes a difference. There is a variety of hardware that all conforms to the same basic specifications, but that doesn't mean they all perform at the same level.

No, I see that distinction and take your point. Hardware does make a difference. I am adding what I believe is an even more important distinction, which is often overlooked. The Microsoft OEMs can distinguish their products only on the basis of hardware, and price. Apple isn't under that constraint -- they can determine how the thing actually works. The other point I'm adding is, the way Apple does things is pretty normal. The way the rest of the industry works isn't normal at all. In fact it's very weird.

 

[pdjudd]

*slaps forehead*
I forgot i was dealing with people who think tying software and hardware is a good thing!
No point arguing when the fundamentals of our opinions are polar opposites.

We are not arguing on it being "bad" or "good". Lots of systems tie their OS and their hardware together with no complaints at all. You are arguing on the validity of a business model which flies in the face of logic.

Apple sure thinks OSX is desirable, its gambling n it to get people to buy their hardware. Nintendo also thinks that its unique interface and control system to get people to buy its hardware.

You are arging that companies should be force to sell its property in a way you want them to. The impitus to do tht however is a business decision.

Blaming the woes of Dell and HP on Apple are a misguided effort - they do not compete with Apple in the same fashion. Apple does not want to compete with these guys and is within its rights to do that.

 

[pdjudd]

And why do you think this is? I'd say because Apple has created an attractive alternative to Windows. So, what is preventing any PC manufacturer from doing the same?

Nothing outside of the huge market share that Windows has (erecting extremely high entry barriers). Ooops! Now who exactly enabled Microsoft to get to that market share?

 

[IJ Reilly]

Blaming the woes of Dell and HP on Apple are a misguided effort - they do not compete with Apple in the same fashion. Apple does not want to compete with these guys and is within its rights to do that.

Even more to the point, Apple isn't under any obligation to create competitors for their own products. Who does that anyway?

 

[hulugu]

Im just saying that you cant hold the manufacturers like Dell/HP/etc at fault for not offering software choices when there arent any. 3% of people use linux, so its really not worth trying there. A lot of people want os x, but they cant get it on anything but a mac due to Apple's outdated restrictions, yet this is cause to blame the likes of Dell?

Yes, it is Dell's fault. The company should shame the blame with the rest of their cohorts. Although Michael Dell makes great noise about running OSX on his own hardware today, in 1997 he famously stated about Apple: "I'd shut it down and give the money back to the shareholders" This isn't the words of someone questioning the marketplace or the need for an alternative OS.

If they want an alternative today they can truly invest in Linux and push that OS out into the forefront just as IBM, Compaq, and others did with Microsoft. MS didn't come out with a monopoly like Athena from Zeus' head rather it took time for that situation to develop.

Nothing outside of the huge market share that Windows has (erecting extremely high entry barriers). Ooops! Now who exactly enabled Microsoft to get to that market share?

Obviously, the barriers are very high, but considering that Apple continues to gain market-share indicates a profound shift in the marketplace. Consumers are no longer convinced that they need Windows, and if Dell really cared about an alternative they would be pushing their Linux boxes to the front-page.

 

[Consultant]

Low quality things that sell for a lower price, will typically sell more than well made thing that cost more unless the perceived relative price are so low that people will go for the higher quality things (iPod, iPhone).

Fast food places sell more quantity of food than your favorite gourmet restaurant. Doesn't mean gourmet restaurants are doing something wrong.

 

[Slowstick]

Low quality things that sell for a lower price, will typically sell more than well made thing that cost more unless the perceived relative price are so low that people will go for the higher quality things (iPod, iPhone).

Fast food places sell more quantity of food than your favorite gourmet restaurant. Doesn't mean gourmet restaurants are doing something wrong.

That doesn't make sense. What does quantity have anything to do with this?

 

[gnasher729]

Obviously that is not true. They sell more software than anyone. Apple has made them look bad. Vista is their best selling OS yet!! Hard to believe, I know.

I said "people don 't want to buy Microsoft software". Five years ago, they wanted to buy. Today, they are forced to buy. If things go on the way they do, then in five years time people won't _have to_ buy Microsoft software. That is when the ship will start sinking

Well....yes...but 10%? That's not much.

Ten percent of the operating system market is a very fine market share. But on top of that, Apple has ten percent of the computer units, Microsoft has zero. But that is just units. In the USA, Apple sells 70 percent of all laptops over $1000.

 

[gnasher729]

Yes, but you have to realize that this is apple's fault. Apple doesnt let anyone use their OS unless you buy their comparatively expensive hardware. You cant blame the other computer manufacturers for lack of OS choices when Apple is to blame for a large part of it.

Seven years ago or so Apple bought Next for $400,000,000. Dell would have easily had the cash to outbid Apple. If they had, and if they had invested further into developing that OS, we might now all be posting on DellRumors how great DellOS X works compared to Windows.

Or Dell could have hired 500 full time developers to improve Linux, and we would be saying that Windows is rubbish, MacOS X is quite Ok, but Dellux is the real thing.

Don't blame it on Apple if others have missed their chances.

 

[Slowstick]

Seven years ago or so Apple bought Next for $400,000,000. Dell would have easily had the cash to outbid Apple. If they had, and if they had invested further into developing that OS, we might now all be posting on DellRumors how great DellOS X works compared to Windows.

Or Dell could have hired 500 full time developers to improve Linux, and we would be saying that Windows is rubbish, MacOS X is quite Ok, but Dellux is the real thing.

Don't blame it on Apple if others have missed their chances.

Good point and great analogies!

But who knew what would happen at that time and Apple took a risk that payed off.

 

[NT1440]

Nothing outside of the huge market share that Windows has (erecting extremely high entry barriers). Ooops! Now who exactly enabled Microsoft to get to that market share?

Edit: Ignore this post, Srry PDjudd, I've been reading through your posts on this page and thats clearly not what you were doing.

I apologize again, Ive been asleep for damn near 18 hours and just dived into the forums still VERY groggy (sickness?).

 

[IJ Reilly]

Apple had to take the risk. They had already tried and failed to overhaul the MacOS. They looked both at NeXT and BeOS as the basis of the new MacOS.

 

[Slowstick]

Now, what EXACTLY were you trying to get at with this post? To me it seems like some sort of twisted bait to bring out the real zealots or something. I may be reading into it to much, and I apologize if I am, but thats what I took away from it.

Clarify if you feel like?

I didn't understand that either...

 

[NT1440]

Good point and great analogies!

But who knew what would happen at that time and Apple took a risk that payed off.

[cultlike voice] His Steveness ALWAYS knows[/cultlike voice]

 

[LethalWolfe]

No, I see that distinction and take your point. Hardware does make a difference. I am adding what I believe is an even more important distinction, which is often overlooked. The Microsoft OEMs can distinguish their products only on the basis of hardware, and price. Apple isn't under that constraint -- they can determine how the thing actually works. The other point I'm adding is, the way Apple does things is pretty normal. The way the rest of the industry works isn't normal at all. In fact it's very weird.

I see where yer comin' from now.


Lethal

 

[hulugu]

Seven years ago or so Apple bought Next for $400,000,000. Dell would have easily had the cash to outbid Apple. If they had, and if they had invested further into developing that OS, we might now all be posting on DellRumors how great DellOS X works compared to Windows.

Or Dell could have hired 500 full time developers to improve Linux, and we would be saying that Windows is rubbish, MacOS X is quite Ok, but Dellux is the real thing.

Don't blame it on Apple if others have missed their chances.

Exactly. Good catch on Apple buying NeXT, they took a risk buying NeXT and bringing Jobs back on board, but it paid off.

Apple had to take the risk. They had already tried and failed to overhaul the MacOS. They looked both at NeXT and BeOS as the basis of the new MacOS.

You're right, once the "pink" team started falling behind with Copland, Apple needed a plan "b" and Jobs was there with NeXT.