From: Jim Witte (jswitte_at_bloomington.in.us)
Date: Sun May 23 2004 - 22:43:57 PDT
> No joke! Cringely is now speculating on the demise of the MacOS and the
> rise of an Apple consumer electronics division. See:
Rise of an Apple consumer electronics division? Probably. Demise of
the MacOS - no, they put too much money into it already. Demise of the
Mac - I don't think so.
If Apple went to Intel and started selling only software, they lose
one very important (at least I think) think: they no longer control the
"whole widget". Now OSX doesn't just have to deal with a zillion
different printer drivers, it has to deal with a zillion different
drivers for everything else too.
I don't know - maybe "generic PC" hardware has standardized enough in
terms of protocols for hiding device IRQs and address ranges and such
that MacOS on Intel wouldn't be a configuration and maintainance
nightmare that Windows can be.
Also, the article said, "[What Steve wants is] to create a revenue
stream that pays you every week. That’s what Steve is groping for, I’m
sure of it." Somehow, I don't think Steve Jobs 'gropes' for business
ideas. He's not stupid. Perhaps short-sighted with reference to our
little green friend, but not stupid..
And this: "[IBM would sell a] workstation based on its upcoming Cell
Processor, which even in its first iteration will be the functional
equivalent of at least four G5s."
Then why on Earth did Apple devote a large chunk of their G5
advertising and WWDC2003 presentation to their partnership with IBM to
create the G5, and IBM's (or Apple's) "promise to double the speed
within 12 months"? Unless that was some elaborate (and expensive) ploy
on the part of IBM. Which I doubt.
"If the Cell is what they claim, Apple would be wise to build a
workstation using the chip."
And IBM had little reason to put so much effort (so it seems) into
the G5. Unless the G5 is used in a lot more than just Macs - meaning
embedded devices. I don't know about G5 sales breakdowns.
"But what if IBM has no interest in supplying such a chip or if their
commitment to Sony and the PlayStation 3 won't leave enough extra chips
for Apple?"
"Even Pixar uses Intel-based hardware in its rendering farm."
This is just a business decision, like everything else. If an XServe
render-farm cost less, I'm sure Pixar would use it. But I doubt that
Pixar really needs what XServe offers - ease-of-use for server
operators. I wouldn't be surprised if another part of the reason Pixar
doesn't use Apple stuff too extensively is charges of
confict-of-interest.
But as for Cringley's assertion of the shutting down of non-Apple
retail channels, I think this is a good possibility, from what I've
followed about Apple in that area. Apple has always had a somewhat
rocky relationship with resellers - I'm thinking mostly about CompUSA
here.
Jim
-- This is the NewtonTalk list - http://www.newtontalk.net/ for all inquiries Official Newton FAQ: http://www.chuma.org/newton/faq/ WikiWikiNewt for all kinds of articles: http://tools.unna.org/wikiwikinewt/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Mon May 24 2004 - 06:30:03 PDT