Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Off-Topic' started by DrunkPotHead, Jun 16, 2005.
What does this mean for macs?
Not very much, I'd suspect. After killing all of the Macintosh clones, I doubt Apple would allow Dell to sell computers with the Mac OS in it.
Meh...it wouldn't happen. Apple would never give up its OS to competitors. Why would Dell want to adopt the Mac OS if PC's are so much better anyways?
Seriously, with all the positive attention Apple is getting over the last few months, the Windows related businesses may be wondering what is in the future. Michael Dell isn't stupid, he may see writting on the wall. To be sure the inertia of all the Windows users will keep things going for a long time, but I am seeing more and more switchers in my circle of friends and acquaintances.
I think many people are confusing Ipod hype with apple hype. Sure, they have been selling more macs recently, but the Ipod is driving the company in terms of publicity and i suspect profits. Macs themselves arent making much ground on the other PC's and windows.
Still, it might be good for Dell if they could get a deal going, although the development costs for something which has a compartiviely small market may be too high to begin with.
The "future" is that currently Apple has < 4% marketshare, and it doesn't look like it's going to get any better.
Dell is just looking for another way to profit; if people want it, he'll offer it if he can do it. And Apple would never let this happen. The minute they did, Dell, HP, Toshiba, Acer, and all the other OEM PC companies would wipe Apple out.
Apple survives by charging a hardware premium to amortize the cost of engineering its OS. If Dell et al can offer the same OS, on the some iron (Apple's going to x86, remember?), they'll be able to undercut Apple by hundreds, if not a thousand (at the higher end of the market).
Steel got it . . . Mike Dell would sell computers with Amiga OS on them if he thought it would move more boxes. And this is a nice way to keep his company in the news, leaping into the biggest IT story of the year.
Mac OS won't get licensed to other manufacturers for a long time to come. Not until Apple decides it can stop making PowerBooks and iMacs and pro towers and iBooks and Xserves and . . . It's still a hardware company.
EDIT: Actually, Steel, Dell is coming out with some high-end equipment that matches Apple's top-end, price-wise. They like the look of those margins up there in rich-person land.
Apple has gaping holes in its product lineup, but the stuff it has isn't nearly as overpriced as the Windows folks like to bleat.
Well considering that by June 2007 all Macs will be using Intel CPUs it shouldnt really matter since all Macs will basically become PC's with OS X as an operating system.
To be honest you could see this coming since Macs aren't selling that much better than they were a few years ago. Their market share is actually closer to 2% worldwide and they really need to do something b/c their computers, although decent enough, are WAY overpriced. Apple has always overpriced everything and they charge for a buncha stuff that I'm surprised they have such a loyal fan base. They can't develop their CPU's either. They're contracting out IBM right now to develop the dual core G5's and soon they are gonna partner up with INTEL to put the next gen of Pentium D's into macs. By switching to intel Job's hopes to lower the prices on his Macs and at the same time add a little more punch to their computers in terms on power-per-watt. This is ironic b/c we all know AMD is much better than INTEL in that department . They probably chose to partner with INTEL for the marketability/money reasons.
Basically what steel and ash said.
Um, unlike all those other computer manufacturers that develop their own CPUs? That would be, um, IBM, and they only do it for serious server equipment.
No PC company makes its own CPUs. What's the point?
Intel spanks AMD in mobile computing CPUs, and that's what Apple needs right now. The G5 is a great chip for tower use, but it's too hot and power-hungry to stick in a laptop, and Intel is where it's at in portable machines right now.
Intel also makes complete chipsets, which will let Apple stop spending cash in-house on those. As fas as I'm aware AMD is pretty weak in that area.
Once Apple machines run on Intel chips it won't be a major task to make them run on AMD as well. But Intel is a far better choice than AMD at this stage of the game. They have far more research and production capacity and they're making the total packages that Apple wants.
Perhaps I should play the devil's advocate this one time, as I've heard the same arguments over and over.
The fact is, Apple's market share on computer sales is around 2-4% (figures vary), but their total share of all personal computers currently in use is about 10-13%. This surprising statistic is due to the fact that on average, Macintosh computers don't break down or become as obselete as similar computers turned out by Dell, HP, Compaq, and the rest, which means the average Mac user has to replace his/her hardware only about one-third as much as his/her Windows-using counterpart. Before you start flinging accusations of Mac zealotry at me, this isn't me just spouting my mouth. Real people have gone out and done market research to find this out. Yes I know, current sales are what matter in keeping a company afloat. Maybe Apple should start sabotaging their computers more to increase sales?
As for the accusations of overpriced hardware, the lack of low-end Macs does not mean that their hardware is overpriced. If you look at their computers, Macs have comparable hardware to mid- and high-level PCs, and until recently they didn't really offer that many models to compete in the low-end desktop market (stuff that the Mac mini and the eMac are meant to address).
As for the CPUs, rumors and insider info has been hinting that the reason for the recent Intel switch was due to the fact that IBM wasn't devoting as much energy to developing the G5 as much as they had initially promised, so eventually Apple decided to go with a company that was more devoted to increasing processor speed. I personally feel that it is a shame, because the current G5 processor is a very nice piece of technology.
i'm pretty sure IBM stated that putting more money into development of the G5 processor wouldn't be profitable, so they didn't bother, which pretty much forced apple to switch to either AMD or Intel- and it went intel because of the mobile technology.
they won't let dell sell their OS, unless they charge a huge premium that would put dells near the same price point as apple machines.
i'm wondering if that 4% figure also includes PC parts, not just whole computers, because the sale of components is a pretty big market for PCs, while it's practically nil for apple.
I bet I spent more on parts last year than you did.
was a major chunk of that one of the cinema displays?
Actually, I did get a 23" beauty . . . but I also bought a pile of RAM and a DVD burner and a hard drive and some external drives and etc. etc.
I totally agree. However, these older Macs do not sell software. They often run older versions of MacOS, and the users aren't rushing out to purchase the latest version of "whatever".
And installed base doesn't matter at all when you're the provider. If you're a developer, installed base is what you focus on; for Apple, the lack of upgrading the hardware hurts, it does not help. So I'm not sure what your point here is.
Hardly. Cooked benchmarks or 'selected Photoshop filters' do not prove that at clock parity, the G5 can compete with the x86's strongest. Not to mention that in order to get even remotely close, Apple had to saddle the dual G5 with a liquid cooling system; only the priciest of boutique PC's come with liquid based cooling.
Macolytes often go on about how Macs are a superior platform for video-editing. Yet even these folks say that the G5 only holds up against a PC eight months older. Digital Video Editing is hardly a 'pro-PC' website, either. They are in fact somewhat Mac-centric. Given that the PC they used was a dual-Xeon rig, I'd hate to see what an AMD based setup would do, or even a P4 based system.
There's a certain mythology associated with the PPC. Ooh, it's Mac and different, therefore it must be a better CPU. It's not, actually. It barely keeps up with Intel, and even I'll admit that Intel got spanked during this round of the x86 wars.
It does have some nice things going for it, like the scalable FSB (well, it's more Hypertransport-ish than an FSB), and that's about it. Altivec is far less useful than we are led to believe, and the architecture was apparently not up to scaling, at least not without running it so hot that it needs liquid-cooling.
Yeah, but they're comparing After Effects on the two platforms. If you give a film pro a choice of AE on a 1337 Windows machine or FCP on a fast dual G5, that pro isn't going to boil his choice down to a bunch of Internet genital-measuring like that site.
Of course not. My point was that when running the same app, the G5 barely holds up. Of course, if your thing is FCP, then you go Mac. I heartily applaud the people who choose their iron based on what they need, rather than "OMG WINBLOWS M$ EVALLLLL"
I was just pointing that Publius wasn't correct.
Shrug. Get the hardware you need for the software you've got to have. If AE is your weapon of choice, x86 it up!
OS X is my killer app, and even dual Xeon machines suck at running it.
EDIT: OK, this has gone far enough. I just laughed out loud in my office because I looked up and saw my own damn avatar.
EDIT2: Actually I think it's funnier because it looks like he's having a conversation with the girl in Steel's, erm, avatar. With that look on his face. And she's grinning happily to see him.
But not for much longer, if Michael gets his wish!
I actually wouldn't be surprised if MS was in on this deal. Think about it. Apple moves to x86. Before they can do that, they need to ensure that Adobe and MS are willing to port their apps over. MS probably said: Okay, as long as you restrict OS X86 to Apple hardware, and not commodity hardware.
I'd bet dollars to donuts that if Apple ever tries to release OS X86 for white boxes, that development on all Mac-stuff by MS will stop.
Yeha, that's pretty much a given. So long as Apple makes that kind of promise, MS will be very happy to see that market segment grow . . . It means lots of sales of Office 2004 and VPC and Windows XP, especially once those latter two start running much closer to native speed on the Intel chips.