Apple's OS Edge Is a Threat to Microsoft

BusinessWeek ^ | 04/11/2008 | by Gary Morgenthaler

[Swordmaker]

Apple is poised for taking over... BusinessWeek - PING!

MacPing!

If you want on or off the Mac Ping List, Freepmail me.

[kingu]

Apple could have 40 percent of the desktops out there, all it has to do is give up the hardware game. Until then - it’ll be as it always has been, poised to take over, but never quite reaching it.

[GunnyB]

I switched to Mac with the introduction of their Intel architecture, and have never looked back. MacOS is so far superior to any other OS. But I think their real strength comes from the entire Apple ecosphere - iPods, iPhones, etc. that all play exceptional well together. I was recently blown away by a report I saw that said that 80+ percent of ipHone users loved their phones - that’s a number unheard of in PC circles...

[ken21]

very interesting.

thanks.

[ovrtaxt]

So, when can I install Mac/OS onto my PC?

[jwparkerjr]

Apple's plight has proved how difficult it can be to recover once you're behind the power curve. I worked for Computerland in the early 80’s. I was there when IBM released its original PC. Before that we sold lots of Apples and an occasional Osborne. Apple made it difficult, and expensive in 1982 terms, to develop software for their systems. You had to buy the information needed to write any sort of software. As I recall it cost about $1,500 or so. When IBM burst onto the scene they were just the opposite. Their original systems came with all sorts of documentation, all packed in neat IBM labeled notebooks in the box with the computer. They wanted people to develop programs for the PC. They were even willing to put their brand on something a freelance developer had written and sell it along with their own offerings. It wasn't long before all sorts of things started being available for the PC. Apple meanwhile released the Mac and made it even more difficult to get information on the OS and ability to program at a compiler level, or heaven forbid, at the assembler level. The rest is history.

I am recalling all of this from memories that are over 25 years old now, so I could be off in some respects, but the overall idea is valid. Apple made it very difficult to be a developer, IBM practically begged you to develop and share.

It was obvious from the git-go that the Mac had a lot of advantages because of its Motorola 64000 processor compared to the Intel series. The biggest advantage was the 64000’s ability to address lots of and lots of memory while the Intel had to depend on 64k and a very confusing paging system to trick the OS into using any more memory.

Just a recollection or two from “the good ol’ days”!

[Locomotive Breath]

Apple made it very difficult to be a developer, IBM practically begged you to develop and share.

And now IBM is a dominant force in the PC software market.

Sorry for the sarcasm, but MS in it's own way is just as closed of a system as Apple. IBM's big screwup was in thinking that the profit was in the hardware and not worrying about the software which let MS capture and hold a virtual monopoly.

[Spktyr]

Apple already tried that. It darn near killed the company.

By the way, current projections say that Apple *will* have 40% of the new computer market... by 2010.

[Spktyr]

If you want to “hack” it, now.

It you want to do it full-legal, never.

[tacticalogic]

It sounds neat. In a corporate environment, it means you’ve just doubled the cost and maintenance on your desktop OS’s.

[Spktyr]

Oh, wow. There is so much wrong with this, I don’t know where to start - and I’ll only be able to touch on this.

For starters - Apple used the 68000 and then later the rest of the 68K (short for 68000) family.

Second, the Intel limitation was *640*K, not 64K.

In 1982 terms, the Apple II had and STILL has the largest library of software titles ever written. Getting information on it was stupidly easy, it came with the machine, and the machine itself booted into BASIC from ROM.

IBM’s documentation on the original PC was questionable at best, you had to pay extra for documentation that meant anything and the

IBM PC development did not really take off until Windows arrived. Until then, the Apple II was still selling better AND was a better platform to write for.

IBM’s PC was well behind the curve until ~1985-1986. It didn’t actually pass the Apple II until about 1987. Apple’s missteps with the original Mac (which, to be honest, was mostly Steve Jobs’ fault but was later extended and compounded by some real stupidity on the part of Apple’s board) allowed IBM and compatibles in and take over.

Hm... stupidity on the part of the market leader creating openings for other companies... Where have we heard that recently?

What we’re seeing now is turnabout. IBM managed to catch up, pass Apple with the help of Microsoft, and then fell off the curve. Microsoft has continued, but it looks like they’re now about to fall off the curve and get passed by Apple.

[Spktyr]

Proof, please.

TCO has *always* been lower for Mac OS machines since the late 90s. It’s a nasty little secret that we consultants *won’t* generally tell you about - so as to ensure that we remain employed.

[Sunnyflorida]

IBM tried to compete with MSft with OS/2. It was decent but was hung up on having to play nice with the mainframe biz. MSFT also arm twisted the system builders into signing an agreement that said if they shipped any PC with windows they had to ship all PCs with windows. This meant all PCs came with windows for “free” but you had to pay extra for OS/2 or any other OS.

[Sunnyflorida]

“Apple could have 40 percent of the desktops out there, all it has to do is give up the hardware game.”

If you read the 10q or 10k you will see that this suggestion is pure foolishness.

[tacticalogic]

Proof, please.

TCO has *always* been lower for Mac OS machines since the late 90s. It’s a nasty little secret that we consultants *won’t* generally tell you about - so as to ensure that we remain employed.

I'm talking about running Windows as a hosted process on the MAC. Now you have two operating systems running on that machine, from disparate sources. The Windows OS and it's applications will still need to be patched and upgraded, and the MAC OS and it's applications will too. How well is that going to play in a corporated environment that's using an automated system for patching management? It's already a PITA to get a MAC to properly join a Windows security domain (whether is even possible at all depends on your definigion of "properly"). I can only imagine what it would be like to get it to work with SMS.

[Sunnyflorida]

Well the problem for MSFT is that they quit (or never had) a culture of writing good software. They used market muscle and “inevitability” (think of the second place dem candidate for president) to get market share and revenue. Now this is all coming home to roost. Buying Yahoo looks like crying uncle on software completely. I can imagine all the internal politics in re-focusing the company on software.

MSFT is its own worse enemy.

Win7 will be a joke. They should buy RHT, put AERO on top of it, fire 90% of the product managers and marketing MBA types, open source some infrastructure components (exchange?, Share point? SOA?), and acquire a few leading software companies (adobe, SAP, others). And put all the energy into writing really great, consumer and business software.

They are trying to become Google, but if you look at the valuations and 10ks of both even that would be a disaster.

[Spktyr]

Now *that* is actually true, running two OSes does increase your support requirements. Surprisingly, it’s not a significant increase over the support requirements of Windows by itself, or so my experience tells me.

The Windows VM will join a sec domain or SMS flawlessly. Remember, for all Windows knows, it IS a PC. Right down to the hardware beyond the HAL of the VM.

[Spktyr]

Actually, there’s a better way to do it AND maintain backwards compatibility, but I’m not going to give Microsoft any ideas for free.

I will drop a hint, though. Microsoft should give up on any pretense of in-current-version support of legacy applications and force them to run in a sandbox - like the OS X/Classic relationship.

[tacticalogic]

Paradoxically, most of the decent application software MS has is the product of buy out other software companies. It gets better integated once it comes “in-house” and the programmers have access to the proprietary code they need to make it work with the other MS stuff, but then development go to crap. I remember reading somewhere that the only software application MS ever had that was totally written in house was Bob.