Apple to 'Switch' to Windows? 903
JFlex writes "PC Mags writer John C. Dvorak discusses the idea that Apple may dump OS X and 'switch' to running Windows in a recent column: "The idea that Apple would ditch its own OS for Microsoft Windows came to me from Yakov Epstein, a professor of psychology at Rutgers University, who wrote to me convinced that the process had already begun. I was amused, but after mulling over various coincidences, I'm convinced he may be right. This would be the most phenomenal turnabout in the history of desktop computing.""
Dvorak: wrong, again. (Score:5, Insightful)
Ok, let's see what you've got...
Epstein made four observations. The first was that the Apple Switch ad campaign was over, and nobody switched.
Um. Wow, okay.
First of all, the Switch campaign was just an ad campaign. Ad campaigns come and go. Even successful ones. (Think "Be all you can be" or "Dude, yer gettin' a Dell!" And yes, those were both very successful campaigns.)
Also, Apple marketshare, unit sales, profits, and revenues are at their highest ever, and growing at a faster rate than, for example, Dell.
So, point 1, wrong.
The second was that the iPod lost its FireWire connector because the PC world was the new target audience.
First of all, this is completely irrelevant to any discussion about whether or not Apple might switch operating systems, which is what I thought we were talking about. FireWire, or the lack of it, has zero to do with Windows. Additionally, since all DV and HDV cameras and decks have FireWire and require its use as the primary - and usually only - means of video transport, FireWire isn't going anywhere [appleintelfaq.com] on Macs in general anytime soon. Further, since all Macs since the Power Mac G4 (AGP Graphics) support USB booting, and since all new Macs and PCs are universally guaranteed to have USB 2.0, going with USB on the iPod and eliminating additional support chipsets for things like FireWire - especially on a peripheral - seems prudent.
But I'm getting sidetracked by Dvorak, here, because the iPod not having FireWire is completely, utterly unrelated to any discussion about whether or not Apple might be switching to Windows.
Point 2, wrong. Actually, not even wrong...just utterly irrelevant.
Also, although the iPod was designed to get people to move to the Mac, this didn't happen.
Um, no. The iPod was designed to be a product that, you know, sold well. Which it, you know, did. Wildly so.
This whole "iPod was deisgned to sell Macs" business was a fantasy created by press and analysts who attribute that guess to Apple as if it were their sole intent. So we'll just ignore that the iPod is one of the most successful consumer products ever, and at the same time say it failed at some imaginary goal and purpose that there is no solid proof Apple ever created it for.
And on top of it all, most of the anecdotal evidence suggests that the "halo effect", as it were, actually works in some areas, at least marginally. To say nothing of the fact that, as I said before, Apple marketshare, unit sales, profits, and revenues are at their highest ever.
Point 3, wrong in both premise and substance.
And, of course, that Apple had switched to the Intel microprocessor.
Ahh, Dvorak must be feeling emboldened by his decade-plus of wrong predictions that Apple was on the verge of switching to Intel finally coming true.
There are many, many reasons Apple switched to Intel, all discussed ad nauseum elsewhere. "Switching to Windows" isn't one of them. Has Dvorak missed the amount of time, secrecy, and effort Apple has put into keeping it's options open for Mac OS X to run on alternate hardware platforms? Christ, Dvorak.
To say nothing of the fact that if Apple's secret purpose was to start a switch to Windows, you'd think they'd have at least made it possible to, oh, I don't know, RUN WINDOWS on the Intel-based Macs easily, which isn't possible at this time?
Point 4, wrong again. Well, at least Dvorak's consistent, if anything.
Dvorak is also actually missing the biggest play for Apple here: being able to run Windows and other x86 OSes in virtualization [zdnet.com]. That would be the holy grail for many academics, researchers, scientists, and other users, most of whom use Macs because they don't want to use Windows. With hardware partitio
I don't agree at all (Score:2, Insightful)
Period.
mod article -1, troll (Score:5, Insightful)
Totally lunatic... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Is it just my imagination... (Score:2, Insightful)
I don't think so (Score:5, Insightful)
Typical Dvorak thoughtlessness and ignorance (Score:5, Insightful)
Personally, I've always disliked the Mac look'n'feel, from the ugly Chicago fonts of old to the top-of-screen mighty morphin' menu.
But Mac OSX has always had something the PC hasn't -- stability. And that's because it's designed into the OS from the ground up. Windows has always felt like stability was "grafted in" somehow, and it's never been a comfortable fit.
Like most management, he gives no thought to stability or the correctness of the implementation. "As long as it's done, it's good enough." And it's that attitude that placed Windows exactly where it is, and why the Mac exists at all. It's not the "computer for the rest of us" -- it's the computer for the discerning crowd.
Re:Is it just my imagination... (Score:4, Insightful)
(As a side note, what's he on? It must be some good stuff for him to think this ever held sense.)
That would be awesome! (Score:3, Insightful)
It would also remove Apple as the "other" platform. Right now, if asked "do you only support Windows," most people will say, "Oh, yeah, we support Macs too, so we support everybody." With Mac down the tubes, there is another obvious "second" desktop platform.... (And, by support, I'm not so much interested in software as I am in Internet hookups, going places and being able to hook in my laptop to a display, etc.)
Too bad the whole thing is just one crack delusion.
-Rob
Yea right.... (Score:5, Insightful)
1. This would be a boon to Linux and a bust for Apple. $x % of people want to be different, and Apple would no longer be different. Or different enough. The GUI is not even close, nor the functionality when comparing the two OSs.
2. OS/X is doing great because of the BSD roots, which benefits from Linux (and vice versa). More hardware makers are opening up their drivers. They have momentum already. And their stock price already reflects this.
3. If it was only about "cool" hardware, Alienware would be larger and Dell's decidedly unsexy hardware would make them another mid-sized company. Cool helps, but there is no shortage of "cool" Wintel boxes, just of buyers.
Sorry, but Dvorak must be jonesing for the hits only slashdot/digg can provide by putting out a story like this. Nothing to see, move along...
That's funny (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm a windows developer by trade, I can't imagine going back. I cannot tell you how nice it is to go home to a computer that "just works", works intuitively, and elegantly after a long day FIGHTING with windows systems. Apple would lose a substantial portion of it's customer base and just become a novelty hardware dealer like alienware.
His key points here on how "no one switched/came over because of the ipod" are just wrong. It's true it wasn't a groundswell, but apple's PC marketshare is growing at about 19%. That's pretty fast, and it's better than it was a couple years back.
Story restated for those who didn't RTFA (Score:5, Insightful)
John Dvorak continues to be the biggest idiot in the tech commentator business. He's been making stupid predictions since at least the '80s, and shows no sign of stopping now. Dvorak wishes he had 1/10th of Robert Cringely's wit and insight. We wish that Dvorak would start scorecarding himself the way that Cringely does, and give up so that he can do something else with his time.
Okay, the story summary goes: Apple and Jobs have recently spent multi-tens of millions developing an Intel version of their operating system so that they can use Intel chips. Soon, they will throw away all that development work, infrastructure work, and vendor relationship work and just use Windows, maybe putting a pretty little 'Mac-a-like' face on top of Windows, because, wait for it, because: Steve Jobs wants to be just like Dell and Compaq.
The ignorance beggars comprehension.
As a comparison, Robert Cringely's prediction: free versions of OS X 10.4/intel given away on bootable ipods so that windows users can try mac for free (once 10.5 comes out.)
I want what he's been smoking! He oughtta share. (Score:5, Insightful)
Anybody remember a few years ago, when Apple was circling the bowl? Microsoft was being raked over the coals by DOJ for antitrust issues, remember? That's when Mr. Gates and Company pulled a rabbit out of their hat by investing in (bailing out) Apple. In one stroke, Mr. G. had diversified his portfolio while preserving the one (semi-)serious competitor in the Personal Computer market, thereby giving the DOJ a face-saving way to quietly let the whole thing go (don't believe me? Why aren't there three companies headquartered at the Microsoft campus right now?)!
Gates ain't gonna let Apple go Windoze - that'll land him right back in the hash with DOJ.
A Professor of Psychology said it..... (Score:3, Insightful)
Must be true then.
April already? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:I don't agree at all (Score:1, Insightful)
Brand-name cachet. The Apple brand is its biggest asset.
Re:correction to yours (Score:4, Insightful)
Since USB 2.0 and firewire are roughly (within an order of magnitude) comparable in performance, why would a product developer choose to use the far more expensive firewire chipset? Especially when that presents difficulties breaking into the low-end PC market, where firewire is far from ubiquitous? That's even the reason we assume the iPod went to USB, was to break into the PC market.
I think firewire is the Betamax of local connectivity. It may be technically superior, more convenient, [insert other advantages here] but it never had the industry backing of USB. Firewire will still hang around for a while because of the large amount of legacy video hardware using it, but it's only going to be present on higher-end PCs, kind of like a technologist's version of a VTEC sticker on a ricer. It's already a niche player, and the niche is growing smaller instead of larger.
Dvorak: wrong, again. So stop readin him (Score:5, Insightful)
This is his job we're talking about. He's not some sort of tech-prophet. He's a writer. He sells words, regardless of their truth and even more so, regardless of his belief in their truth. The more people read his stuff, the more influence he gets, the more his predictions carry any weight, the more money he makes.
If 2 billion people read Dvorak and all disagreed, he wouldn't care. He'd still get paid. As it stands, since all he is doing is predicting, he can't be wrong in the traditional sense, because he can simply say "Just you wait. You'll see!" And there's nothing we can do about it....
iPod FW Comparison (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Dvorak: wrong, again. (Score:5, Insightful)
x86 switch with OSX for nothing? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:I don't agree at all (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Dvorak: wrong, again. (Score:5, Insightful)
Me too. I think the best response with Dvorak is just to ignore him, but unfortunately Slashdot keeps printing his rubbish.
Re:Dvorak: wrong, again. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Dvorak: wrong, again. (Score:5, Insightful)
The problem is that Apple's x86 platform is completely legacy free (BIOS/MBR/VGA) and uses all new platform technologies (EFI/GPT/UGA). Almost all current x86 OSes, and all current 32-bit versions of Windows, don't support these new technologies, effectively making it impossible to (easily) do anything with these OSes directly on the hardware. Now, this is going to change with Windows Vista, but still.
But your point is still well taken, and one that I made in my own response to which you replied.
Re:correction to yours (Score:4, Insightful)
"Proper?" That's pretty shortsighted thinking there. One addition to the USB standard combined with a software driver release et voila! USB 2.0 would suddenly be the digital video transport of choice. All accomplished with no hardware changes to the vast majority of consumers' computers.
Here's the conversation at Ritz Photo to imagine: "Sure, I could sell you this digicam with firewire, but you'll need to have a firewire card installed into your computer. I also have this digicam that comes with USB, which your PC already has."
I'm not talking about cinematographers or television studios, or even the "prosumers" here. I'm talking about the 90% of camcorder buyers, Joe Sixpack out there buying a camcorder so he can tell people he's recording Junior's birthday, but really intends to shoot himself and the missus knockin' uglies.
To make lots of money, you build your hardware to sell lots of units at Best Buy. Firewire doesn't entice Joe Sixpack -- to him, it's a computer-geeky negative; especially when there's a known alternative.
i just read TFA and i am amazed (Score:2, Insightful)
this article is full of non-sequiturs. It shocks me that it even gets a spot light.
"The theory explains several odd occurrences, including Apple's freak-out and lawsuits over Macintosh gossip sites that ran stories about a musicians' breakout box"
How does it explain it? No it doesn't. Where is the logical jump? Apple sues because it wants to keep its upcoming products from hurting sales (and hype) of their current products. That's the most reasonable and simple (and thus probably correct) explanation.
"the iPod was designed to get people to move to the Mac, this didn't happen."
What? Hasn't apple been gaining market share non-stop due to the halo effect? Didn't they just pass Dell in the educational market not even a week ago?
"This switch to Windows may have originally been planned for this year and may partly explain why Adobe and other high-end apps were not ported to the Apple x86 platform when it was announced in January"
Yeah, that makes sense. Everybody is buying a new version of the OS that will, for once, require new versions of software. Adobe is going to ignore this great opportunity to sell a upgrades. Yeah. That makes sense. Not. Sounds more like they simply got blind sided by the news and haven't finished porting yet.
"Apple OS x86 could gravitate toward the PC rather than Windows toward the Mac, I have to be realistic. It boils down to the add-ons."
NO it doesn't. Microsoft is a software company, thus they don't build their own laptops or desktops. They focus on licensing out their OS. Apple is a hardware company that creates their own boxes and does not license their OS. Since Apple controls the hardware and software, they can gravitate toward the PCs, but Windows will never move to Macs, even if they wanted to. Macs are proprietary to Apple. What a garbage speculation.
"Apple has always said it was a hardware company, not a software company. Now with the cash cow iPod line, it can afford to drop expensive OS development and just make jazzy, high-margin Windows computers to finally get beyond that five-percent market share and compete directly with Dell, HP, and the stodgy Chinese makers."
Don't you mean Apple can finally afford to invest even more into their OS, bundle it even better with iPods and iTunes, and use the halo effect to grab an even larger market share away from Dell, HP and stodgy Chinese makers? So you're saying Apple will become Alienware PCs? Yeah, and we can see how dominant those guys are in the market.
"To preserve the Mac's slick cachet, there is no reason an executive software layer couldn't be fitted onto Windows to keep the Mac look and feel. Various tweaks could even improve the OS itself."
So Apple would be selling a windows skin? It would be slower, buggier, assumes MS would be okay with a complete rebranding of their OS (good luck!), and yet he expects them to be able to directly compete with the biggest PC sellers in the world despite this hinderance? Let's not forget MS won't be giving Apple any coding documentation on core inner workings of the OS. And Apple is going to somehow be able to fix the security vulnerabilities and bugs that native MS developers have been struggling for years to do. And what happens if a MS patch breaks one of the "upgrades" Apple made to the OS? And doesn't this directly contradict the quote about dropping "expensive OS development?"
Sometimes I can read speculation and think, "Hm, that IS interesting." But this time the complete lack of logical progression makes this "theory" worthless even to someone who'd want to believe it.
Re:In other news... (Score:1, Insightful)
oh! or maybe you're mistakenly referring to ONE country (the United States of America) by the name of the WHOLE CONTINENT with its over 30 different countries...
Re:Dvorak: wrong, again. (Score:4, Insightful)
Actually, if apple were going to switch to windows, I don't see why they wouldn't do the whole intel + microsoft transition instead of swtiching to intel and then to windows. This is silly. You can argue G5's were not much faster or even slower than x86 chips, but Mac OS X is clearly ahead of windows.
I wouldn't be surprised to see mac os x to change to another OS, though. Multiple core CPUs are there and the freebsd code injected in their mach kernel is know to have had some problems (just like freebsd 5.x) WRT. scalability. Is not that freebsd will never be fixed and that 6.x is not rocking already, but damn, solaris han been opensourced and it is one of the hottest events on the OS field in the latest years...I wouldn't be surprised that apple were considering to switch their freebsd code for solaris code
Re:Apple OS would become OSS (Score:2, Insightful)
Business Sense (Score:3, Insightful)
They switched to Intel because it made business sense and aligned with their underlying value proposition as a company.
Becoming another WinTel vendor, however, is completely antithetical to their business model.
Their business model is based on differentiating the experiential components of computer use. The CPU is not a mechanism by which they can provide differentiation; the OS is. OS X is generally considered a better user experience than any Windows version.
Why on earth would they switch?
They would not. The fact is, Dvorak makes money off getting people to click to that stupid page, and he does it by saying stupid things. If he had the first clue about Apple, he might actually have had a correct prediction about the company in the past decade. How many times has he proclaimed the company dead?
Re:Dvorak: wrong, again. (Score:3, Insightful)
Look at the business models (Score:2, Insightful)
Dvorak knows he's wrong. (Score:3, Insightful)
Sadly, I see just realized that this huge thread is in Slashdot's economic interest as well. Expect more of the same.
Re:iPod FW Comparison (Score:3, Insightful)
My theory on the Firewire to USB switch has more to do with design. Unless Apple went to the small 4-pin firewire interface, the nano wouldn't be so small with a standard 6pin Firewire interface. To be able to achieve the thin design, Apple had to go to a thinner interface, hence USB.
Re:correction to yours (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:I don't agree at all (Score:5, Insightful)
OS X is icing on the cake as far as I'm concerned. Try an iMac sometime, it's the future of computer design today.
On the internet we have a name for folks like him (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Dvorak: wrong, again. (Score:3, Insightful)
I switched. 3 other people in my office switched. Whats he talking about?
I hate to add another "Me too" post but I also switched, and I work for a major PC manufacturer. By showing a few other people my PowerBook I have convinced four other people to switch (and get iPods, but that is another story). I am starting to think that Dvorak writes these articles so someone pays attention to what he is writing, like a small child who is not getting enough attention so s/he misbehaves to get the only type of attention s/he can.
I'm Gonna Be Blunt (Score:2, Insightful)
Not so fast... (Score:2, Insightful)
That being said, in this case there are a couple additional things to consider:
*developing/maintaining OS is a significant overhead for a company
*currently, even though the sales of computers in Apple generate a large portion of profits, they also amount to a large portion of expenditures (r & d, hardware, software etc.)
*if we compare the cost/performance ratio of iPod/iTunes business, this is really where Apple's bread and butter are
*recently, there have been a lot of rumors that Steve Jobs has gotten more and more disinterested in the Apple, especially around the time he was battling a cancer. This could be in part due to the fact that he is getting more and more involved with Pixar/Disney. See: this [blogspot.com] and this [typepad.com]
*there are signs that OSX is increasingly becoming a mess (somewhat outdated but worth a look, although don't put too much weight into it: click here [macuser.co.uk])
If we consider previous statements, dropping OS may actually free-up a significant portion of Apple's budget to do other things which appear to be more profitable and will definitely become more profitable as they become more dominant on other platforms. So, this does not seem so far-fetched, although I do admit that even I doubt this will happen anytime soon, if at all. On the other hand, whether you like hearing this or not, Microsoft in all likelihood hopes for Apple to stay independent as that is the last excuse they have to prevent the government from proclaiming them a monopoly (which they arguably already are).
The appeal of Apple is that they do both.. (Score:2, Insightful)
Apple is highly unlikely to give up what it considers its only competetive advantage.
Dovorak is a dummy and never listen to a psycologist about anything, especiall the computer industry.
CAN WE PLEASE GET A SEPARATE DVORAK SECTION (Score:2, Insightful)
Seriously though, I've never seen a Dvorak column posted to Slashdot that could have any use to anyone. That man is a waste of everyone's time.
Re:correction to yours (Score:4, Insightful)
Consumer: "How about that camera there? It's $499."
Salesperson: "Sure. It's not bad. But you have to be careful, it's USB."
C: "Oh
S: "USB is really for hooking up keyboards. If your computer isn't really fast, it'll drop frames, and suffer compression artifacts."
C: "Drop....frames?"
S: "It'll look bad."
C: "Oh. Well, that's not good. What else can I buy?"
S: "This one right here is only $699, and it comes with the card for your computer so you don't get dropped frames..."
Re:Dvorak: wrong, again. (Score:3, Insightful)
Jobs is responsible for OS X in the first place (Score:3, Insightful)
Remember, years ago, Apple was developing a new OS, Copland (if I remember right), while being headed by Gil Amelio. Jobs was at NeXT, then. Then, Jobs comes back to Apple (billowing S-emblemed cape and all), ousts Amelio, throws out the bathwater AND the baby of the Copland project, and replaces it all with OS X, whose other parent besides BSD is NeXTStep.
So, replacing OS X with Windows would be tantamount to admitting that the heroic rescuscitation of Apple was, I dunno, not worth the effort or something.
Re:Well if I remember correctly.... (Score:3, Insightful)
Apple also makes a bunch of other software, much of which is highly regarded. That's nice too.
*blink* (Score:5, Insightful)
I mean, seriously, haven't you guys learned that Dvorak is just a useless turd of the industry yet?
Re:Dvorak: wrong, again. (Score:3, Insightful)
While I totally agree, it's supremely unlikely. Why does Windows have so many problems and why does OSX have so few? It's not pisspoor or great coding (though it certainly could affect things) - it's the hardware. Hardware that Apple has to support is 100% controlled by them - it's a limited number of configurations, and they can do extremely thorough testing to ensure proper compatibility and whatnot. One given motherboard on a Windows setup probably has more different possibilities than the entire history of Apple products, and there are dozens of motherboard manufacturers. So instead, they rely on third parties writing the drivers, and if they can afford it, MS will test them and give them a little digital signature making you feel all well and good installing them.
I'm sure OSX has its share of problems too, but when you consider the matter, writing OSX compared to writing Windows is like the difference between writing a review of a drill versus a review of every power tool ever invented. It's just easier to write for a controlled hardware set (anyone who worked with QBasic back in the day could well remember this, as timers were based on clock frequency rather than an actual clock, thus you'd have to modify a program in order to use it on a different comp)
Re:Dvorak: wrong, again. (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Dvorak: wrong, again. (Score:2, Insightful)
Did Dvorak even try OS X? (Score:3, Insightful)
Several friends of mine switched. They like the good engineering and the 'Just works' thing. They have jobs to do on the computer and can't be bothered with whacky programs, virus etc. Their iPods Just Work (TM), and then they look to the Mac for a similar stable computing experience. The 'Halo' effect is certainly working, and they would have nothing to gain by becoming just another Windows platform.
Dvorak is off a tangent again, but this time it's so obvious, it reveals his lack of insight and reflection for anyone to see. It's just embarrasing. Someone point him to this thread, please :)
Re:Dvorak: wrong, again. (Score:5, Insightful)
Keeps him employed, and keeps those ad sales people happy.
Re:Dvorak: wrong, again. (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:correction to yours (Score:3, Insightful)
Since the vast, vast, vast majority of PCs have USB connectors and don't have 1394 connectors guess what people who own these cameras use? Vast. And since it's DV, the quality is exactly the same over the USB connection as the 1394 one. Perhaps it's not "proper" since it's not an open standard and required drivers. Some users would still be better off with 1394 for the short term since DV over USB isn't yet very well supported by Linux.
Perhaps you're confused with cameras a couple of generations ago that would capture low-resolution low-frame-rate video to an SD card which was transferred to PC via USB mass storage emulation.
Seems like Dvorak switched to LSD (Score:3, Insightful)
If you think Microsoft is going to private label a version of Windows for Apple, think again. If anyone could get a private label version of Windows, it would be Dell, and they can't get it. So certainly Apple could not.
Re:I don't agree at all (Score:3, Insightful)
True, if you feature match, Apple is competitive with Dell, Compaq and company. However, Dell doesn't make me buy all the features. You can strip a Dell to get a lower initial entry cost. Compare a Mac Mini ($499, no monitor) to the bottom of the line from Dell ($349, including a 17" CRT) and you'll see where the price premium comes from. Nobody argues that Apple's features are overpriced -- it's the computer that is. If you don't use all the bells and whistles, why should you expect to pay for them? If you don't care that the Dell is 5x the size and sounds like a wind tunnel, why are you expected to pay more for the silent and svelte Mac Mini?
OSX is the reason I have a Mac. The hardware is overpriced for my needs -- I don't use all the features I've got (honestly, how many iMac users will actually use the built-in camera?) -- but that's why eBay is doing so well. The MacOS, on the other hand, gives me the stability and power I grew accustomed to with Linux, with usability and maintainability which I couldn't have dreamed of.
Differentiation is the key (Score:4, Insightful)
1. Commodity products that you sell a lot of at rock bottom prices, and make your money on volume (think no name PCs, computer parts, GM and Ford cars,
2. Expensive unique products that you sell a few of at high prices, and make your money on margin (think Rolex, Ferrari, Porsche, Apple Mac,
Think if an inverted bell curve with price and quantity as the axes, and you get the idea. The former is on the far left, the latter is on the far right.
The best place to be is closer to the left as possible, or closer to the right as possible. Being in the middle is the toughest spot.
Apple is already differentiated and sought after. By going Windows, they will lose a lot:
1. Their hardware will be expensive, while the user interface will be the same as one from Dell or a no name PC.
2. They lose revenue by giving a piece of every sale of a PC to their arch-rival Microsoft.
3. They become undifferentiated, and compete with well established PC vendors (Dell,
4. Their user base will be pissed off and will defect to cheaper PCs, since they lose the most unique part of the deal: OS X.
There is nothing going for this line of thinking. Or rather lack of thinking
Dell, HP, and the 5% market share (Score:3, Insightful)
The funny part is that Dell leads all computer manufacturers world wide with only about an 18% market share (in desktops). In fact in desktops Apple is the 9th largest computer maker in the world by desktop market share. In the U.S. they rank 5th (Dell is first with ~35% share).
It's not like Apple is some small fry. They are one of the 10 biggest computer makers in the world, and top 5 in the U.S. And this IS the proper way to rank them--against other computer manufacturers. It's stupid to rank Apple against Windows because it's apples (pun) and oranges. It's like ranking Mercedes against Delphi--they're at different layers in the industry.
Anyway there are many ways in which Dvorak is mis- or uninformed in that article. I just thought I'd point that one out. I agree with the parent--Apple is right where they want to be--big enough, but still commanding significant margins.
Re:Dvorak: wrong, again. So stop readin him (Score:3, Insightful)
What I don't understand is how the Slashdot editors continue to let his sh#@ get front page. It's just a huge troll article and the outcome is always the same. Can't the
Re:Is it just my imagination... (Score:1, Insightful)
Slashdot posts all Dvorak articles.
So, yes.
Who are you trying to kid? (Score:1, Insightful)
I don't think Alienware's hardware is "cool" anyway. Sci-fi themed crap is for little kids.
What's really in store... (Score:3, Insightful)
Apple would not survive a move to Windows. It's users would never make the move. If Dvorak really thinks this will happen he's seriously out to lunch as Mac users are fundamentally different beasts than Windows users. Apple users tend to be very tied to their machines, and won't give up the ghost as easily as the OS/2 crowd did.
Besides, Mac users tend to actually have souls.
GJC
Wait, there may be something here... (Score:3, Insightful)
Dvorak thinks like a conspiracy theorist, amplifying and artificially conjoining irrelevant trivia beyond all common sense.
Still, there may be some grain of truth here. I would look at the following argument instead:
dual-bootPoint 1: Apple makes essentially all of its revenue (and profit) from hardware. They make money by shipping hardware, NOT by promoting OS X or beating Windows or selling songs on the iTMS.
Point 2: Apple has become a very good hardware manufacturer, in particular since Tim Cook joined. This is one of the most under-reported Apple stories of the last several years. In terms of cost and efficiency, these guys can beat HP easily and go toe-to-toe with Dell. Case in point: Calculate their inventory turns from recent SEC filings; Apple is getting 50+ turns per year, roughly comparable to Dell.
Point 3: Apple has to be thinking about the fact that most iPods have been sold to PC owners. This proves there is a huge pool of people out there who don't want to use Macs for whatever reason, but will pay premium prices for Apple products because they are "cool" (i.e. they value the Apple brand, but not the Mac). Apple has sold lots of iPods to these people; they must be looking to sell computers to the same.
Point 4: The rabid-loyal Mac fan base is a huge strategic asset to Apple, and one they would never ditch. Moving to Intel is irrelevant to most users because it doesn't change the user experience (indeed, very few would even notice). Moving to Windows would represent a complete sell-out. Apple would never do this knowingly. It would be like The Grateful Dead telling their fans they are losers for going to their concerts over and over.
Given all of the above, a logical course for Apple would be to ship machines that can run both OS X and Windows. This achieves two objectives:The only real downside risk to this "dual boot" strategy is that developers may decide to stop developing OS X versions of products. (If everyone can run Windows software, why develop for OS X?). Over time OS X might become increasingly marginalized.