[OT] really?

[Eric Dunbar]

On 6/11/05, Daniel Gimpelevich <daniel at gimpelevich.san-francisco.ca.us> wrote:
> Well, that's what Apple might do if they were Microsoft, but they're not,
> so when Apple puts in their EULA that you're not allowed to run any Apple
> OS on non-Apple hardware, they really mean it. The number of people
<snip>
> released. Almost immediately, someone will make an XPostFacto-like utility
> for x86, and they will do it using existing Darwin-x86 code. Windows users
> will eventually try out OSX in droves in the manner Rick described
> earlier, because Windows users practically never read any EULAs they are
> presented with, much less comply with them.

I don't think Windows users are any less ethical than Mac users.
Remember that Mac users are worse pirates than Windows users :-!
(software is so much easier to copy on Macs... when you can
drag-and-drop Microsoft Office from one computer to another it's just
too easy. No hidden DLLs, etc.)

> will make potential customers hate Apple more than they hate Microsoft,
> because Microsoft privately views the piracy of their own software with a
> wink and a nod whenever it suits their product strategy. Apple will also
> have to write off most overseas markets as a source of revenue, because
> due to their relatively limited hardware market penetration worldwide and
> the difficulty in obtaining valid Apple licenses locally, OSX running on
> commodity x86 hardware will be the only OSX most people in the world ever
> see, and will therefore be the only OSX such people will consider running.
> Apple has already tried and failed to be primarily a software company.
> They know that the reality is that hardware is their bread and butter. It
> would appear that they have now completely resigned themselves to the idea
> that that hardware no longer consists of computers. Unless you own stock
> in Apple, their future as a company should now be somewhat more irrelevant
> to you as someone who uses Linux at least some of the time.

The only thing that is certain is that only the Apple senior
management and their consultants will have a strong sense of where
they'd like to take the company. Most pundits are just spouting a
whole lot of hot air.

Under Steve Jobs' near mythical guidance they have done quite well.
Some things have fallen by the way side (a customisable user
interface... menu and window colours & fonts, the Dock) but their
hardware and software have made amazing strides. Mac OS X is now the
pinnacle of *nix computing (GNOME and KDE are such distant poor
cousins that they don't really register on the for-profit scene) and
Mac hardware is easily the most recognisable in the business.

The only thing that's certain is that we're in for some pretty major
changes. You can be guaranteed that Apple's going to put out a sweet
G4 laptop and maybe a nice G5 update within the next year -- they're
going to have to keep the cash flowing into their coffers somehow now
that so many people will be holding off "just that extra little bit"
so they can lay their hands on an i86 Mac. Also, once the i86 comes
out, you can be guaranteed that Apple is going to sweeten the pot --
faster, newer, longer battery life but there's got to be an extra
enticement to get Mac PPC users to switch over (though, if the new
i86Macs are *that* much faster with *much* better battery life that'll
be enough).

As for whether or not we'll see Mac OS X for cheapo boxes -- I'd be
surprised. They're doing marvellously well as an OS software
manufacturer (contrary to your assertion), and, couple the ability to
run Windows on a *Macintosh*, and you see why Apple is making the
switch. Yes, they're competing head-to-head with i86 manufacturers and
with Microsoft Windows BUT they now offer something that so many
people wished they could have -- a Macintosh that runs Windows XP
natively, either exclusively as a Windows box (in which case the
computer functions as a premium clone) or as a dual-boot for someone
like me who needs software from both worlds.

And, I *do* think it will hurt (slow) Linux adoption on i86. This is
neither a bad thing, nor a good thing, it's just a fact.

Many Windows users would love to leave Windows behind because of
concerns (and frustration) with virus infection and spyware computer
highjacking, BUT they have no alternatives. In theory there's Linux,
but in practice it's *NOT* "there" yet and is unlikely to be "there"
for quite a few years.

In comes Mac and Mac OS X. It runs on more expensive hardware, BUT
that hardware will still run their favourite i86 games, possibly run
many "favourite" Windows apps through WINE (or something similar),
BUT, they will be able use Mac OS X, a commercially supported OS, use
an OS with hands-down the most refined and usable GUI.

Most importantly, they will be able to run all their internet apps
with NEARLY all the codecs they're used to running (MS may licence
restrict its i86 media codecs from running under OS X). All those
niggly little 3rd party codecs and plugins that have been coded for
i86 (>95% of the market) ONLY will all of a sudden become available
for OS X. The hooks are all there in FireFox, Camino, Safari, Mozilla,
etc. for third party plug-ins. All that was needed was an i86
processor on which to run them.

The one thing that I'm wondering about is whether MS will release
Internet Explorer for OS i86X. They stopped development for IE a while
ago, and, arguably that's now OS X's weak point. Yes, there are
Safari, Camino, FireFox and the Mozilla/Netscrape bloatwares BUT there
are still _some_ websites which REQUIRE IE or work better with IE.

Anyway, that's enough for today.

Eric.