ZDNet’s David Coursey, now a switcher, writes an editorial about the need Apple has to create a cheap Intel box with OSX in it, as a way to tone up its PPC sales and grandually switch x86 users, more than switch PPC users to Intel. OSNews featured a similar editorial recently, but suggesting a G3 CPU.
Coursey: Why I Want a Pentium Mac
About The Author
Eugenia Loli
Ex-programmer, ex-editor in chief at OSNews.com, now a visual artist/filmmaker.
Follow me on Twitter @EugeniaLoli
Doesn’t everyone remember when NT 4.0 came out, and your CD had a directory called PPC, and you spent hours trying to get NT to work on your Mac? And no matter how many times you held down the letter C, it still didn’t work?
Apple has adopted so many standards over the years – memory, hard drives (SCSI and then IDE), peripherals (USB/Firewire), even wireless networking – that the only non-standard parts of new Macs are the motherboard and case. The only reason Apple didn’t switch to x86 is because PPC is still, and will always be, better.
For that same reason, Microsoft, with its 95% marketshare, should offer Windows for PPC.
All they’d need is a processor emulator, similar to what Apple used when they switched from 68k. It wouldn’t be that hard to make one, or indeed to use the one they bought in the form of Virtual PC (heyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyy…) Then people can run all their old programs, and use all their old hardware, on their old OS, whiile getting the benefit of the fastest processor and platform around.
“If it’s common hardware, it’s already cloned. What you were trying to say is that my proprietary claim was invalid. In fact, it is valid because you can’t run OSX on anything other than Apple hardware (the PPC processor).”
Windows doesn’t run on any hardware other than intel’s x86(amd is a licensee) /itanium. So how is it any less proprietary?
Microsoft owns copyrights to windows period. Windows is a defacto standard but is definately proprietary. x86 is a intel proprietary amd licenses it. SPARC on the other hand is more open than x86.
The reason 97% of the world runs windows on x86 has nothing to do with quality of the products but the monopoly that intel and microsoft have in their respective field. The rason they can maintain that market share and have lower prices is the amount of volume they can see. Which directly is related to thier market share.
Any new enterant into this field is going to have a very hard battle to gain market share and is going to loose money trying to compete on the low end. Because intel and MS can always outprice any of thier competitors out of business.
The reason they can is because they are both behemoths of companies with shitloads of cash and have monopolies.
Tell me why can’t you find as many AMD athlon based laptops as p4 ones? Why do most manufacturers ship smaller batteries with athlon notebooks than the intel ones so that they both have the same battery life, even though AMD had better cpu power management? Now with the pentium-M intel finally caught up.
i think microsoft should port to ppc. they are a software company. apple is more or less a hardware company. both could increase there money flow. allow a dual boot option. I wouldn’t neccessarily find windows useful since I love OS X but I know alot of people who would enjoy it. such an option would definitely sell more macs.
i bet that os x would dominate the users time on such a machine since it is so much better than xp.
just a thought. I know it will never happen, but it would definitely keep apple kicking a long time.
Apple IBM and Motorola are the first that come to mind..
Well, they’re all building hardware for Apple.
Really? Why do[n’t] you like Apple?
I don’t like closed platforms. I’m a DIY-er and a tweaker/overclocker, so they’re not attractive to me. I don’t blame them though as they don’t target my market. I also don’t really like their philosophy, something I’ll explain below.
As does all their computers
Aye, but not for me. I built my own machine with Linux, so it’s hard to get a better price/performance ratio. I must admit that the quality of Linux isn’t as good as MacOS X, but I don’t care as I can play with the OS. However, I can’t build laptops, and honestly, I wouldn’t even if I was able to, so that’s why they’re not the same to me.
What is it about the philosophy that you don’t like.
I don’t like their elitist attitude. I never really liked the ads and they actually made the opposite effect to me. I never considerated Macs until the launch of the G5 at WWDC only because of that. I know that’s not a rational choice, but many, if not most choices human make ain’t rational, anyway.
Apple do sell an Office suite with OSX which is compatible with MS Office…its called Appleworks.
That assums that Apple would be providing the same components as is available in the tower and their all-in-one.
More likely is that if Apple were to sell a $600 computer in the immediate future they would be seeling it with the same specs of an equivilent PC.
IE… relatively low end.
The “Budget Mac” doesn’t have to be loaded like the top tier machines. Budget Macs are simply entry level machines containing second or third generation parts.
As of this moment, most of the action are happening in the sub-$600 segment and Dell is currently the first followed by HP. Saturating the market with Budget Macs won’t hurt the top tier simply because the market is segmented.
Most people already have a screen, so they want to buy a cheap, headless machine (or pay a bit more for more quality). Nobody wants to pay $1300 for a 1.2GHz machine though (the G4 Power Mac). I can get a good quality Athlon XP machine with twice the speed for $600 including a good-looking quality case. Sorry Apple, but you don’t convince me there.
The same goes for the iMac: for $1500 (well, in Germany its 1500 Euros which is more) I can get a 15″ TFT, and a top-notch PC, not that 800MHz thing. I could even buy a TFT AND a small iBook! Those iMacs are ridiculously priced for their lamp design.
To get on topic:
moving to Intel doesn’t buy anything. A G4 costs probably $200, not more. The G5 costs maybe $350 per processor, so why does Apple charge $2000+ for a machine?
It’s Apple’s ridiculous profit margins that make the price.
Anyone who cares for an open platform can buy a dual opteron for less than the low-range G5.
I’d really like to know why Apple does overprices desktops, while doing Notebooks which are maybe a bit expensive, but certainly ok (especially their battery power compares to power-hungry Intel stuff).
Apple should keep the PowerPC but lower Desktop prices by $300 for _everything_ to just be expensive, not more.
Btw: why was that “poem” modded down? I kind of like it.
Dave Coursey is a lot in tune and smarter than a lot of readers gave him credit.
He has highlighted some very valid points on reason why PC users are not switching to Macs : Inability to run the latest games software, the need to run a certain Windows software and of course the initial high cost of Macs.
These are the same reasons why I have been Mac Envy but have not switched over yet. Wouldn’t a user like to have the best of both worlds : multitude choices of software/hardware from the windows world plus the elegance/intergration/ease of use from the Apple world.
“To top it off, no one says they have to give up their PPC hardware.”
Although many will adopt OS X on the Intel side, it takes (I’m estimateing here) approximately 100 OS X sales to equal the profits made on the average Mac hardware. If any Mac users choose to use x86 hardware, they have to sell THAT many more copies of Windows. A better plan is to continue selling OS X on PPC and forget the whole x86 idea.
HUH? Stamping a CD costs ~ .001, aol produces about 10 bazillion a year free of charge! Of course the development and such costs $$, but its already done, MARKLAR is a well known product. So your telling me, that at 120$ for a copy of OSX, of which about ~ 20$ (and I am being very giving here, its probably less than that!) goes into producing it and packaging it. Now, at 100$ profit per box, they have to sell 100! boxes to equal the profit of 1 peice of hardware?? 100×100 = 10,000, give or take based on markup etc. Now, which peice of hardware does apple profit 10,000 dollars on per sale?
Look at the video game market. Everyone in video gaming knows, the hardware is NOT where the money is made. Its the SOFTWARE! Sony, M$, Nintendo, they would all be bankrupt if all people did was buy the hardware and not the software. Profit margins on hardware are nowhere near what they can be on software, even with Apples Higher than normal profit margins!
THE G5 IS CHEAPER THAN ANYTHING ELSE OUT THERE TRY AND GET A DUAL P4 WITH THE SAME SPECS AND ADD THE PRICE.
OH BUT YOU CAN’T SO YOU HAVE TO BUY A XEON (Something the average windows user doesn’t know anything about, but it comes in duals).
NOW COMPARE THE G5 AGAINST THE XEON…WHICH IS CHEAPER?
GOD SOME WINDOWS USERS ARE JUST TARDS…no matter how many times you explain things to them…
please stop this idiocy with the x86 OS X!
we’ve been through it over a million times! (maliase i glossa mou pia! – greek)
I doubt whether you could gain even 5% of the market by giving OSX for x86 away free. No one wants it. You would have to buy new (non-bundled) software anyway. Linux can’t get desktop share so how can OSX either.
x86 macs would still be very expensive anyway.
Huh? Who is complaining… and how is this right? if you’re going to make a statement like that you had best clarify it somehow.
Lots of people are complaining that Apple doesn’t sell a cheap expandable headless desktop. This hole in their line rules out many potential buyers. I would’ve thought that if you had read ANY of the Mac threads here you would’ve known this fact already.
How is this the “still” the case when the G4 is relegated to Apple’s consumer lineup and the G5 is for the pros. With that shift, Apple is at the top of its game speed wise.
Because the G4 is still extremely expensive. Look at the sites selling them. $1800 is NOT a consumer lineup PC.
Time? They’ve already done it.
No they haven’t. The consumer lineup is that same as it was a year ago. All they have done is bump the speeds a little. There is still the glaring headless hole. This is a HUGE deal for many people.
You’re the kind of person that gives Mac users a bad name. Deny everything. Claim everything is wonderful. Is that your mantra?
Jeff
proud Mac owner since Oct 2002
It’s one thing to make an observation. It’s quite another to make a good suggestion.
He mentions that OS X on x86 is a big if – if it could be secured. But it can’t be secured. x86 hardware running on windows needs BIOS and it needs it to act a certain way. Any machine Apple could sell that could run Windows XP also would have to conform to existing specs. Sure, Apple could fab their own BIOS motherboards but how long would it be before someone starts selling motherboards that could be fitted with a mod-chip to run OS X?
So while his observations may be valid, the solution he is throwing out isn’t valid outside of his own little fantasy land. Except in fantasy land no one buys computers (they get them for free).
And he’s also living in fantasy-land if he thinks that supporting yet a THIRD system (OS9, OS X PPC, OS X x86) is going to make Mac developers happy. I have yet to hear from a single Mac developer that believes this would be a smart move.
These are the same reasons why I have been Mac Envy but have not switched over yet. Wouldn’t a user like to have the best of both worlds : multitude choices of software/hardware from the windows world plus the elegance/intergration/ease of use from the Apple world.
They can have the best of both worlds. It’s possible today to network a Mac and a PC. And haven’t you considered for a moment that part of the easy of use of a Mac is because there isn’t quite the multitude of hardware choices? And, to be honest, I am quite happy with the multitude of software choices that exist on the Mac. Most of the complaints in that area are just by the misinformed (outside of games, but even in that area I have TOO MANY GAMES TO PLAY right now).
HUH? Stamping a CD costs ~ .001, aol produces about 10 bazillion a year free of charge! Of course the development and such costs $$, but its already done, MARKLAR is a well known product. So your telling me, that at 120$ for a copy of OSX, of which about ~ 20$ (and I am being very giving here, its probably less than that!) goes into producing it and packaging it. Now, at 100$ profit per box, they have to sell 100! boxes to equal the profit of 1 peice of hardware?? 100×100 = 10,000, give or take based on markup etc. Now, which peice of hardware does apple profit 10,000 dollars on per sale?
Profit is revenue – expenses. The per-unit cost to fab a CD is very small but you also need to include the R&D spending to write and support OS X in that equation. Unfortunately I cannot find R&D spending for Apple broken down by category.
“Profit is revenue – expenses. The per-unit cost to fab a CD is very small but you also need to include the R&D spending to write and support OS X in that equation. Unfortunately I cannot find R&D spending for Apple broken down by category.”
They haven’t finished OSX for PPC yet so how are they going tpo do an x86 port. The cost would be huge – hundreds of millions of dollars and a few years to get it right.
Others are even more so. For example, they work in the hardware dept at Apple and believe they have the first Dual 64 Bit box. Firstly, they actually don’t have any at all right *now*.
Secondly, there are already Dual 64 Bit opterons *on the shelves* for 2,5 month. So what is your problem with P4/Xeon? There are Opterons and they are as much im competion with G5 as the others, if not more. So, no reason to freak out here… This is Apple destortion field at its best again and you certainly already fell for it where you beleive their advertising.
x86 processors cost a lot more than PPC processors plain and simple. The processor is not the reason that Macs are expensive. It’s the motherboards and R&D that make Macs more expensive. An Intel Mac would cost more unless Apple used generic motherboards which they won’t do since there would be nothing stopping people from runing OS X on Dells, Gateways, HPs, etc if they did (A lot of people suggest a special chip that the OS would check, but do you really think that a special chip wouldn’t be hacked? It has worked for all console systems that are a lot less open than generic PC systems).
Before you get all heated up I would like those who think that the consumer buys strictly on price to make note of something. The biggest seller in automobiles is the SUV. That includes all manufacturers so it is not slanted by one company.
Now, the last time I checked pricing the SUV is not a cheap vehicle. The pricing differential of these vehicles with the low end is not a few hundred dollars, or even a few thousand dollars, Now, does that mean that we have a bunch of wealthy and stupid buyers? I do not believe so.
So please, let’s stop the nonsensical discussions that refelct our own personal biases and rarely represent the collective thinking. Otherwise, I must conclude that those that buy computers using price as their primary decision making must be very narrow minded (I do not actually believe this) and not too bright.
This is total non-sense. You guys have no idea what developing for a modern environment like the Mac is. How can you promote such stupid ideas like porting OS X to the 86 platform will be help Apple?
Developers have invested too much on learning the PPC and its abilities (think Altivec…), to embrace another source of difficulties for cheap entry-level computers dedicated to people who’ll never buy professional-grade software.
The entry-level Macs with their G3/G4 are fine enough to run the iApp, and the G5 is what will strenghen the professional offering.
Although, I don’t like Apple (Wintel/AMD rulez!) that Dual G5 is going to be mine sometime this September… That David Coursey character and all other cheap bottoms around here can go and buy that el cheapo Wintel/AMD deals…
Bah! G5 has me! I cannot believe it! I will actually become one of those lame switchers 😮
No, they made a fortune in OS bundling, then sold its office suite after customers were already using the OS
Which translates to software sales. Thats exactly what the guy said there skippy.
Apple believes in the OS, but they can’t arrange a deal similar to that which microsoft arranged because Microsoft tells PC OEMs that if they bundle a competitors OS they will loose their license to sell Windows.
Pure FUD. I can buy Dell hardware right now with NO OS or Linux installed. Try again.
A better plan is to continue selling OS X on PPC and forget the whole x86 idea.
Sure. That works. Just don’t expect apple to have anything more than a niche share of the market.
The foundation of Apple’s OS is open source, a far cry from Windows, and Apple’s hardware is not proprietary… it uses common hardware just a PC does. Apple just doesn’t clone their hardware.
Darwin hardly makes OS X non proprietary. Everything on top of darwin that makes OS X a MacOS is closed.
Apple should be cloning their hardware. MS proved software is where the money is at for an OS developer.
Mac has 2% of the market, I dont think Intel would look their way. But, if it was OS X is x86 that means it will play games on an okay level right? I dont think many people will care if Apple goes to x86 because: Macs are too expensive, and lacks of games, and software. But it would be cool if Apple makes a good decision and go to a processor people know an love, I bet tons of peepz rate a g5 as if its a Pentium 4. (2ghz G5 is a 2ghz P4, blah blah) Apple should use Intel chips, they would make more money.. Period. If Mac OS X can play games and half the software (Oh yeah, and the price should cut down) then I will switch, but I wont.