Apple must concentrate on Microsoft customers
 

Macworld Daily News

-Snip-

Apple must concentrate on Microsoft customers rather than its own user base if it is to build on recent successes, a top Harvard professor says.

Harvard Business School professor and Apple specialist David Yoffie said: "For future success the company needs to look out to the Windows world – as it is doing with the iPod and iTunes".

There are a number of reasons why Yoffie thinks Apple would be unwise to continue to develop solely for its existing install base. One reason is the cost of development of the Mac operating system: Mac OS X cost about a billion dollars to produce – an install base of 10 million is not going to recoup those development costs.

"A top Harvard professor"... who is also on Intel's board of directors. Great.

I'd have to agree... if Apple would just open up thier OS they're probably have a hell of a lot of adopters.

I know I'd like an alternative to Windows that has support for retail software... as a graphics guy, Linux just doesn't cut the cake, whereas a Mac could.

they make their money on the hardware... liscencing mac OS could drive them under.

Exactly. The MacOS is the only thing keeping people buying the slower Macintosh hardware. If Apple give that away, while they'd probably rake in the millions, nobody in their right mind would buy one of their computers. And how quick do you think hackers would break it once it goes mainstream? Myself and many others like our security.

I agree too. Look what the iPod did when they made it available for PC users (including me).

Apple should port OS X to the PC...
Improve windows emulation... If it ran on PC hardware I bet they could do pretty damn well for themselves.

Hardware driver support would be a bitch though

I just wish when they commit to something for the PC they do it right the first time.

Ex. when iTunes for the PC came out it had a major bug with dell and crash my computer

Ex2. iPod, should come with the USB 2.0 adapter come on how much more could a plug cost.

Mmmmm.....security through obscurity. Not something I'd put a lot of weight in.

Not quite. While being a smaller share helps, OSX is still extremely tight, but the more attention that's put on it the faster somebody is going to break it. And after that it goes to shit.

The lack of viruses and exploits for OS's like Linux and Mac OS X has nothing to do with "not being mainstream" and everything to do with the simple fact that the very nature of them doesn't allow for situations like what you have in Windows to exist. On Unix-based system - when used properly - it's impossible for a normal logged in user to alter system files. On a windows system, anyone - even without administrator priviledges - can go in and delete random files from the "Windows" folder. Tell me how that makes sense.

Don't misunderstand me as saying OS X and Linux and other Unix-based systems are perfect. They aren't. They have their exploits. They're simply not nearly as far reaching and, frankly, simply CAN'T be. Ever wonder why you hear all these internet viruses wreaking havoc on IIS web servers yet the majority of web servers (over 2/3) run the open-source Apache? It's not what's "mainstream" that gets targeted - it's what's most vulnerable.

As for OS X on x86, I used to be a big proponent of that. Until I realized one thing. Why does OS X run so well? Apple has a very unique advantage in that they know EXACTLY the hardware they're writing their OS for, so it can be optimized up the wazoo. In other words, OS X on x86 would blow. It's too bad too, cause it could be pretty cool.

OSX on the X86 wouldn't blow. FreeBSD that OSX is based on runs on X86 hardware as well. It'd probably be little more than a recompile to make it work for x86, if they coded it right the first time.

OS X's code is based on several operating systems, not just FreeBSD. Just a minor correction.

But SecretMethod70 is partially right. The main problem Apple would have with porting their OS is device drivers, not the architecture itself. That's really just the technical side, I'm sure they have other reasons not to port it.

Though I'll point out Darwin does run fine on (some) x86 hardware.

I eamn all that smooth graphical eye candy that everyone goes crazy about. It's beautiful. But it's easy to make it work smoothly when you're only writing it for one type of hardware. It would take a lot more powerful of a computer to do all that if it weren't so optimized for Apple's specific hardware.

Not really. It is probably just OpenGL. I know that some versions of Xwindows on unix use OpenGl graphics for prettiness. All you'd need for that stuff to work is a functioning accelerated video card.

Are some portions of OS X software installers operating like gentoo? Where apps are compiled for the specific instruction set of the CPU it's being installed on?

I don't mean everything, just that it's an option with that fancy installer for developers. I always wondered what that really long "optimization step" was. Frequently it happens to be the length of a kernel compile.

but that's not always a good decision... Thats like telling Nintendo to concentrate on the X-Box and PS2... Sega went that way and isnt doin to well..

Doesn't matter if it's openGL. Doesn't mean it can't be highly optimized. Look at the "graphics demos" that are specifically and highly optimized to work excellently on the specific cards they're supposed to demonstrate.

OpenGL is already optimized to run on accelerated video cards. That's why we have standards like that, so it can be "optimized" on a wide range of videocards/systems. My point is that it's not so awesome just because it's optimised just for mac hardware.

That isn't quite true, certain OpenGL commands and rendering techniques work better on some hardware than other hardware.

So if I know I am rendering on a card with a really low fill rate, but very high triangle throughput I could favor using many simple shaded polygon over fewer heavily processed polygons.

Also the driver implementations of OpenGL commands very in efficiency and quality. It makes a big difference knowing what hardware your running on. Knowing whether T&L is implemented in hardware or done in software is an example of one important thing.

OS X definitely gains a performance boost from knowing that it only operates on two (now three) basic architectures.

Sega didn't have a choice. It's a bad example. Dreamcast sales plummeted soon after it launched, everyone was still wary over the Saturn. Sega could either give up, or develop software only (for all the other systems). I'd choose to develop software as well.

It's already been said a few times, but the reason why OS X runs so well is because it doesn't need to support the "ba-jillion" pieces of hardware that Windows must.

I've got a desktop XP box and a PowerBook. The PowerBook is a joy to use (notice I said "use", not "maintain").

OS X is like the old days of PC computing... When I want to perform a function, I launch the appropriate app. For example, to browse the web I open Safari or Firebird. With Windows, I can do it this many ways:

Start | Run... | http://sitename
Open IE
Open My Computer | C: | type URL in address bar
In any Office application

While the above may be convenient, it's one of the reasons for the law suits of integrating the browser into the OS and the myriad of security flaws that plague Windows. And besides, I want to be in control of my OS - not the other way around.

Perhaps Apple has no reason to go after Windows customers. They'll never make a dent in the Fortune 500 but they will maintain and grow their Creative and Scientific user base. I guess I see them like Mercedes and BMW - not everyone can afford them but they still sell. On the contrary, Windows is the Volkswagen: trying to appease everyone and trying to achieve the "luxury" status of Apple....and still lagging behind.

Just like VW's recent $70,000 Phaeton that got poor reviews by the media. But I am digressing...

So windows is complicated because in addition to the "easy" mac way, there are also other ways that other people might prefer? That's right, choice is bad.....

Also, when you're on your windows xp machine and you want to perform a function, do you not just launch the appropriate app?

This thread has left the realm of reality and entered the magical realm where people who have never written (or modified) an OS live.