Linked by umad on Thu 25th Aug 2011 22:51 UTC
Apple I thought OSNews would be a good forum to talk about a matter that has been weighing on my mind lately primarily because the site has been so focused on Apple's patents and litigation as of late. The news that HP, the largest PC manufacturer in the world is spinning off or getting out of this business is what really prompted me to write this article.
Permalink for comment 486974
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Comment by phoudoin
by phoudoin on Fri 26th Aug 2011 06:48 UTC
phoudoin
Member since:
2006-06-09

Nothing forbid Apple to port their operating system to the PC open architecture, which was NOT made opened by Microsoft contrary to what the article try to imply but by IBM.

If their operating system was available too on PC open architecture at time Microsoft released their Windows 1.0, there is no doubt that, indeed, Apple will have then get 95% market share.

But they reject the idea of open platform: the Not Invented There syndrome. Since start Apple sell you an integrated product, where hard and soft can't be mixed or tuned at will. That's their choice.

The fact that a very inferior operating system on an initially inferior hardware BUT open and standardized PC platform took over the well integrated Macintosh is very much telling: high integration is not the ultimate selling point for everybody. In fact, too tight integration is not that well selling.

Otherwise, beside Apple being the top leader in personal computer field instead of PCs, we will also NOT have internet but a tight, closed and centraly controlled and opaque network, like eWorld, CompuServe or MSN. But, against all prevision, it's an open community build network architecture which succeed.

Another forgotten point is that personal computing didn't grown in people home at start. It grew in offices all over the world first. Where depending on one SINGLE provider for both hardware and software don't make buying department happy.


The article jump totally over the "standardized components" aspect. It also jump totally over the contribution from the major PC components manufacturers. The Video cards manufacturers introduced quicker bus technology (VBUS, then VESA). Intel itself have improved year after year PC architectures. A lot of PC today hardware architecture points were (re)designed by Intel, and it's now far from the one released into the (then) void by IBM.
There is a reason why Apple switched their in-house hardware platform to a PC-based one: they know it was a better one (even if up to a year before they were trying to say with pathetic Photoshop plugins benchmark the contrary...).

If someone was stolen a whole business model regarding personal computing, it's IBM. But as they didn't knew then that their PC platform had actual value, they failed to see it having any potential.
When you put something in the dust bin, do you call people finding it there, saying "wow that's great" and taking it away a thief?

Integration can be great.
But in an interconnected world, interoperability comes first. Which means being able to team with other's solutions.

Mac OS classic was written in Pascal for the upper layers and 68000 assembly at the bottom. May they have ported the bottom to x86 and done a good graphic card PC extension, Apple's MacOS will have ruined Microsoft.

They think a computing system can only be an integrated object.

Internet today, with cloud and web services, is the new computing system. And it's the exact opposite of an integrated object. It's a interoperable web of heterogeneous computing devices.

Aka, diversity.
Aka, life's rule #1: nobody can control everything long.

Reply Score: 5