true, but my point was... it's not like he invented the damn stuff either, anymore than gates did DOS when he really bought QDOS for $50,000. jobs paid to copy but it is still copying... see what i mean???
Posted on 06/11/2005 8:46:12 AM PDT by quidnunc
The war in Iraq rages on, the European Union is fraying and North Korea may have nuclear weapons. But if you read the business and technology news this past week, all of that seemed to pale before an event variously described as seismic, epic and stunning: Apple Computer has decided to adopt processors made by Intel for its future Macintosh computers.
There's a reason this was big news in the computer world. For decades, Intel's chips have been tightly linked to the software of Apple's archrival, Microsoft, and Apple has touted as superior the IBM PowerPC chips that powered the Mac. Plus, Apple CEO Steve Jobs, probably the most charismatic business leader in America, attracts attention for anything he does, even though his Macintosh has a tiny share of the PC market.
But what does Apple's move mean for the average consumer, who just wants the best computer for the job?
In the long term, the change will strengthen Apple and the Mac, which is good news for anyone devoted to that platform or considering switching to it. That's because Intel's processors and other chips will give Apple more options than IBM's products could for building Macs that run faster and cooler, and have longer battery life. The first Intel-based Mac is due in spring 2006. Even consumers who use Microsoft Windows, which runs on the vast majority of computers, will benefit, because the Mac's impact on the industry is vastly greater than its market share. Apple is the most innovative major computer maker, and the only one largely dedicated to serving consumers instead of large corporate customers. Almost everything it does is later copied by the Windows PC makers, so keeping Apple strong and innovating is good for Windows users, too.
-snip-
(Excerpt) Read more at ptech.wsj.com ...
AND MaryFromMichigan! Thanks...
With Microsoft's VirtualPC Mac users have been able to run about 97% of that huge selection... but most do not because frequently equivalent and often better versions are available in native Macintosh formats.
NO THEFT TOOK PLACE!
Apple PAID Xerox in advance with over $3 million dollars of preferred stock for the walkthrough of Xerox and use of any ideas they saw. Xerox sued Apple later after a new CEO came aboard who became unhappy with Xerox's sale of their workstations... and lost.
I think the biggest screamers will be those who will want to run OSX (purchased or pirated) on their current cheapie greymarket intel boxes rather than buy the board for which the OS will be designed.
Apple's going through a hardware-change and is ostensibly designing its hardware as what it determines is best for itself from day-one.
I could understand its not wanting to cater to every possible mutation available in the 'old hardware' market.
Just out of curiousity (I really don't know) - how did Microsoft adopt the mouse? Same was as Apple? Or just taking it? Or through licensing from Xerox?
It might also help bring some of those titles to Linux. Since OS/X is *nix based, having it on Intel architecture should make it easier to port those applications to Linux.
As for the Mac; glad to hear it is finally attempting to get enought basic capability in it that it can possibly run REAL programs. As any Engineer in the field can attest by perusing any number of trade magazines.
TurboCAD, CircuitMaker, Traxmaker, ProCAD, EagleCAD, PC-CAD, MaxCAD... to name but a few. See the post just following yours for even more examples.
There's a greater story here tho...
http://www.pbs.org/cringely/pulpit/pulpit20050609.html
Intel buying Apple - smoooth.
No wonder MS's Balmer had his face all over the place the next day.
His reponse about the "merger", "Whatever...."
I like the last paragraph of the above link:
"This scenario works well for everyone except Microsoft. If Intel was able to own the Mac OS and make it available to all the OEMs, it could break the back of Microsoft. And if they tuned the OS to take advantage of unique features that only Intel had, they would put AMD back in the box, too. Apple could return Intel to its traditional role of being where all the value was in the PC world. And Apple/Intel could easily extend this to the consumer electronics world. How much would it cost Intel to buy Apple? Not much. And if they paid in stock it would cost nothing at all since investors would drive shares through the roof on a huge swell of user enthusiasm.
That's the story as I see it unfolding. Steve Jobs finally beats Bill Gates. And with the sale of Apple to Intel, Steve accepts the position of CEO of the Pixar/Disney/Sony Media Company.
Remember, you read it here first."
true, but my point was... it's not like he invented the damn stuff either, anymore than gates did DOS when he really bought QDOS for $50,000. jobs paid to copy but it is still copying... see what i mean???
Or a good POS program.
OS X is based on FreeBSD, not Unix.
I believe they basically licensed the patent, but I'm not sure.
Basically, Apple didn't have any of that stuff patented because it wasn't theirs to patent. I'm sure Xerox didn't giva a damn who used it, and I'm not sure they even invented the mouse.
The Apple-Sony link disappeared even along with the Apple-IBM link. Apple-Intel has quickly changed everything.
By the way, PowerMac and PowerBook don't seem likely to last long as names for Apple's products, now that PowerPC is on the way out. What will the corresponding Intel versions be called?
The Apple-Sony link disappeared along with the Apple-IBM link. Apple-Intel has quickly changed everything.
By the way, PowerMac and PowerBook don't seem likely to last long as names for Apple's products, now that PowerPC is on the way out. What will the corresponding Intel versions be called?
Fat chance. Not because it's technically difficult, as you infer, but because the vendors aren't convinced many in the Linux crowd are willing to pay anything for their software.
BSD is a type of Unix.
http://www.bsd.org/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Berkeley_Software_Distribution
FreeBSD has its Unix, yeah, but to say OS X is based on Unix completely cuts out the FreeBSD part, and that's factually incorrect.
BSD 4.3 is Unix!
Thanks for the ping. Here's a good read (excerpted):
http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,1759,1826651,00.asp
Opinion: Steve Jobs knows that Apple will never wrest away a significant chunk of Microsoft's Windows market share as long as OS X remains tied exclusively to Apple hardware.
I predict that, shortly after the completion of Apple's big move, the company will deliver OS X Unbound—a version of its excellent and innovative operating system that'll join Windows, Linux, Solaris and OS X's own BSD cousins in offering users the option of running the OS they've acquired on the hardware they choose.
In fact, I believe (and maybe there'll be a magic Steve Jobs keynote moment in our future to confirm it) that this has been the Apple co-founder's aim ever since he returned to the company's helm. Jobs knows that Apple will never wrest away a significant chunk of Microsoft's Windows market share as long as OS X remains tied exclusively to Apple hardware.
Microsoft's OS monopoly, in addition to putting a "start" button on almost every desktop in sight, has ingrained a particular sort of business model in the computer market—consumers can choose from a variety of system OEMs and processor vendors on which to run their software.
Computer consumers, particularly companies, aren't going to surrender the flexibility of multiple vendors and abandon the still-valuable hardware they possess in exchange for a single, vertically integrated supplier that gets to call all of the shots.
For those of you who contend that Apple is primarily a computer hardware company, ask yourselves where the locus of innovation at Apple resides—it's OS X and the suite of slick software tools that are built atop it into which Apple has obviously poured the most attention.
When people talk about moving to Apple and talk about the problems that they expect the Mac to solve—the Mac is less virus-prone, it's easier to use, it provides a friendly portal to Unix and open source—they're talking not about Apple hardware, but about OS X.
While OS X will run most seamlessly on Apple-built machines, Apple can ensure good hardware compatibility in the same way that every other OS vendor does—through a hardware compatibility list.
The fact that companies and individuals will have the option of standardizing on the excellent OS X platform without having to buy 100 percent Apple-built machines will actually open the doors wider for Apple hardware, because a move to Mac will no longer require throwing away the hardware that companies and individuals already own, and the OEM relationships that buyers have already formed.
If I'm correct, why is Apple denying it?
After the keynote, Phil Schiller said that, although Apple will do nothing to prevent users from running Windows on Apple boxes, Apple would not allow OS X to be run on non-Apple machines.
Apple needs to deny its plans to unbundle in order to give itself the head start it needs to ramp up its Intel box production, and to prepare developers to enter the wider x86 world. Until Apple has readied its own x86 offerings, it needs the promise that only Apple hardware will run the flashy and cool OS X to keep people from buying boxes from Dell or other vendors that are already ramped up to produce rival systems.
Steve & Co. are too smart to allow protectionist attitudes toward one part of their product line to retard sales of another—that's the sort of "strategery" that prevented a Sony too focused on shielding its content properties from the digital age from delivering consumers a worthy, MP3-playing heir to the Walkman—thereby leaving open the door to the now-dominant iPod.
Perhaps second to the iPod, OS X is Apple's hottest commodity, and millions await the chance to pay Apple $130 every year and a half for it. Now that OS X is queued up to launch on x86, The Steve is way too smart to clip its wings — I guarantee.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.