New Photos:

  New Ramblings:

  New Links:


Last Updated


Previous Posts

About the Blog

The thoughts and theories of a guy who basically should have gone to bed hours ago.

I know, I know - what's the point? But look at it this way - I stayed up late writing it, but you're reading it...

Let's call ourselves even & move on, OK?

Powered by Blogger

Tuesday, June 21, 2005

More on the Mactel front...

OK, the combinations are coming in faster than a hyperactive craps table:

Michael Dell says he'd be willing to offer the Mac OS on Dell machines, even though their attempt at selling Linux laptops has already failed. Apple had no official comment, but has said that they won't allow the Mac OS to run on anything but an Apple Mac (motto: "trying hard not to sell too much software...")

Apple's also said they won't sell or support Windows on Apple hardware (motto: "it used to be we couldn't run the most popular OS in the world, now we just don't want to...")

I agree with Jeff Porten on this one - it'll be the hackers who get it working first, and the relative success of their hacks that determine whether the company "decides" to support it in the future (motto: "don't look free beta-testers in the mouth...")

posted by Brian at 12:08 AM


  • Your mottoes are cute, but I'm sure you know the reasoning behind them.

    "Trying hard not to sell too much software" means "trying to preserve our bread-and-butter hardware business". I suspect that Apple Corporate has the same theory that Mac users do -- which is that Apple hardware will kick ass in a head-to-head competition against current Intel hardware. Especially now that there's an entry in the Wal-Mart price range (sorta).

    "Now we just don't want to" -- not so much. Virtual PC is on the shelves of every Apple store. This is a) a question of differentiation, and b) Apple's understanding that they have a huge investment in supporting Mac OS, and why get into the biz of supporting Windows? Let the other people have the high-cost, low-returns market.

    Note that I've revised my theory -- I think OS X for Intel will be in the wild far sooner than the release date, and it'll come off of one of the developer boxes.

    By Anonymous jeff Porten, at 3:19 AM, June 24, 2005  

  • If you're right, then Apple's managing with its heart, not with its head. It wouldn't be the first time, mind you, but it's still dumb...

    Requiring that OS X only run on Apple hardware may be one way to "preserve the bread-and-butter hardware business," but allowing Windows to run on that hardware would be a much better way.

    In fact, as I argue in my Ramblings section, allowing Apple hardware into the massive corporate markets where it's currently anethema would do a lot more than preserve it - it could take them from niche player to major competitor overnight.

    To your point about high-cost, low-return, I'm not sure where you're getting your data. I agree the cost would be high, but the economies of scale involved in becoming a major hardware vendor should far outstrip the setup costs (especially given the low cost, offshore options available today). Of course, I don't have any hard data either...

    By Blogger Brian, at 2:55 PM, June 24, 2005  

Post a Comment

<< Home