Apple - Intel Inside?

P4Man · May 25, 2005

>How would moving to x86 make Apple any less competetive
>against Dell and Alienware than it is now?

Because it would compete much more directly with other x86 vendors than it does now. Go to dell, and try to configure a dual G5. You can't ? that means that apple is the cheapest

Seriously, think about it. Say they move to some x86 cpu. Would they disallow any x86 (unix/linux) tools/apps/games to run on the machine ? I guess they could in theory, but why would they ? Its not like current Macs can't run Linux, so an x86 mac will as well. What exactly is the difference between a Mac x86 linux box and any other ?

Then think about microsoft.. would Apple disallow you to install windows on their machine ? They maybe could, but why would they ? What is the benefit of not giving the option ? Most likely, the machine will run windows as well, just like current macs run MS Office (although for PPC/OSX). Now what is the difference between a Mac and a Dell ?

Oh, and if they do port all there software to x86.. wouldn't they want to sell their OS and apps to Dell customers just as well ? Artificially Limiting your software to only your own hardware is usually bad business if you only have a tiny percent of the hardware market, and potentially a far greater percentage of a specific software niche; just ask Sun (solaris), IBM (DB2, websphere, etc, etc) or even Apple themselves (itunes, quicktime,..). Variable cost of software is almost $0, so they will be *very* tempted to start selling OS-X and Final cut pro for other machines as well, especially when their hardware market share slips any further.

Then consider the hardware.. sure, apple can design their own chipsets and motherboards, they have proven how terrible they are at it with the G5 memory subsystem, so why would they ? Makes far more sense to buy cheap, high performance chipsets on the open market, like they do for videocards for instance. NOW what is the difference between a Dell and a Mac ?

Nah, if Apple starts selling x86, within a few years they will no longer be a computer hardware company, and at best they will survive selling iPods, iPhones and maybe OS-X and some specialized apps. Maybe Apple would be better off that way, i don't know, but competing with Dell&Co ? They can't live on those margins, precious few companies can.

I wasn't trying to be too funy with my Itanium guess. If (big if!) its true that Apple is going to use some intel cpu for their desktops, I think it will be an IPF derivate. Its the only way they can differentiate themselves, and it would be good for intel too, as *any* single IPF sell is statistically very significant and help pay the development bills.

= The views stated herein are my personal views, and not necessarily the views of my wife. =

slvr_phoenix · May 25, 2005

If Apple made x86 Macs in the future (which I highly doubt) I'd envision them taking the M$-XBox route. They'll put in hardware to ensure that only proprietary stuff runs still, both hardware and software. Then they'll port their software to x86 and their apps will still all depend upon the API of their OS so that their apps don't run on Windows/Linux any better than they do now. And they'll probably even keep all of the same hardware interfaces for keyboards, mice, etc. that they have now with specialized motherboards. They'll just provide new drivers for old devices.

(And deranged enthusiasts will find a way to hack Linux onto it.)

One might consider this approach crazy, stupid, or, well, just about any negative word one could think of. But then, it would leave Apple in exactly the same situation that they are today. They've been doing it for decades, even when it's clearly been getting them nowhere. Why would they change that business model now?

It's not about what is or isn't logical in the market. It's about what mentality Apple has been stuck on for nearly as long as they've existed. That's how I see it anyway.

On a slightly different note, imagine if Apple did release an x86 flavour of OS X with a G5 emulation layer to support all native Mac software along with any native x86/OS X compiled softwares. (Like DEC tried to do with the Alpha.) I wonder if something like that could actually impact M$ for a change.

As for being serious about the chopped Itanium, well, I'll leave that for anyone else to touch. I can only consider it a joke. I can't even imagine how an Itanium would perform with less cache. It'd probably be a real Itanic.

<pre>Jesters do oft prove prophets. -Regan in
King Lear (Act V, Scene iii) by William Shakespear</pre>@ 188K -> 200,000 miles or bust!

cdpage · May 26, 2005

here's another outlook.

Over the past week, there has been renewed rumor-mongering about discussions between Apple and Intel about the possibility of a move to Intel's x86-64 platform. Many have, once again, interpreted this as meaning that Apple would completely drop the PowerPC platform within a short time of moving to x86 -- but that is not at all what we've been hearing from sources in Cupertino.

Apparently, any adoption of an Intel platform (whether it be x86-64 or something based on the Itanium "EPIC" design; the former being much more likely than the latter) would not be an all-or-nothing proposition.

Instead, it would be a move by Apple to introduce its own computer(s) based on Intel and/or AMD hardware, simultaneously with its PowerPC systems -- probably a high-end machine in the PowerMac class. This would include at least some backward compatability for PPC applications and hardware drivers, and would compete within Apple's own offerings against the PowerPC platform.

At times when IBM can't deliver major advances to the G5, this could drive more users to Apple's x86 offerings....and give Apple two separate, but integrated, hardware platforms for users to choose from. There would be no pre-determined roadmap -- instead, the marketplace would make the decisions.

So, rather than dropping PowerPC in favor of Intel, Apple appears to be seriously considering a dual-track strategy that would pit the hardware platforms against each other within Apple's own family of Mac OS X computers -- the winner in the marketplace would determine Apple's long-term direction with regard to hardware. Either way, Mac OS X wins, Apple wins, and the consumer wins.

This would put more pressure on the PowerPC development consortium (primarily IBM today, but with several up-and-coming players soon to make themselves known) to stay competitive....an Apple that isn't locked into either platform should, in theory, get the best of both worlds and end up with the natural, Darwinistically derived winner.

If true, and if Apple is able to carry this out in a fashion that doesn't create disruptive confusion for its customers, it could be very good news for Mac users as well as those who want to switch to Apple's software but want an otherwise seamless transition on the hardware end of things.

Im not so confident in this idea. but only time will tell

<A HREF="http://www.digitalgunfire.com" target="_new">DigitalGunfire-Industrial EBM</A>
ASUS P4S8X-P4 2.4B - 2x512M DDR333 - ATI 9500Pro - WD80G HD(8M) - SAMSUNG SV0844D 8G HD - LG 16X DVD - Yamaha F1 CDRW

P4Man · May 26, 2005

>If Apple made x86 Macs in the future (which I highly doubt)
>I'd envision them taking the M$-XBox route.

I hope not. An XBOX will not run *any* software that hasn't been signed by MS. No way even Apple users would put up with not being able to run shareware, custom code or legacy apps.

If you mean it will not run any other OS than OS-X, I don't think that is likely either; a good part, if not the majority of its xserve server line uses Linux. If it runs linux, MS can make it run windows as well.

>One might consider this approach crazy, stupid, or, well,
>just about any negative word one could think of. But then,
>it would leave Apple in exactly the same situation that they
> are today.

Not really. Today Apple can differentiate themselves from x86. They are good at marketing, and they managed to convince quite a few people the G5 is actually better than pentiums or athlons at a lot of apps. Just how would they even try to do that, when they use the same hardware (with a significant price premium that further more limits your software choices) ? Tough sell if you ask me. It will completely expose the premium you have to pay just to be able to run Mac OS-X and not run any x86 windows apps or games. Apple might as well just sell OS-X for that premium and let it run on Dell hardware. It would instantly increase their market potential by a factor 10x while mostly giving the same benefits/costs to its customers.

>On a slightly different note, imagine if Apple did release
>an x86 flavour of OS X with a G5 emulation layer to support
>all native Mac software along with any native x86/OS X
>compiled softwares. (Like DEC tried to do with the Alpha.) I
> wonder if something like that could actually impact M$ for
>a change.

I think it would have better chances than Linux on the desktop for the next 5 years or so. IOW: yes I think it could. IMHO, it would make more sense for Apple to sell OS-X and apps to Dell users than sell x86 hardware to apple customers. Its just not a good business model to artificially restrict your software sales to your own hardware if you do not have a large enough marketshare. Its why Sun wants everyone to run Solaris instead of using Solaris to sell its boxes. Its why IBM wants everyone to use DB2 and websphere, rather than relying on those apps to sell hardware. As I see it, Apple really is a software (and marketing) company, and Stevie Wonder will come to realize that sooner or later. iPod sales can only mask its losses in the computing business for so long..

= The views stated herein are my personal views, and not necessarily the views of my wife. =

slvr_phoenix · May 27, 2005

I hope not. An XBOX will not run *any* software that hasn't been signed by MS. No way even Apple users would put up with not being able to run shareware, custom code or legacy apps.

If you mean it will not run any other OS than OS-X, I don't think that is likely either; a good part, if not the majority of its xserve server line uses Linux. If it runs linux, MS can make it run windows as well.

I meant more or less the latter, with the possible exception of a required authentication similar in nature to M$ WHQL drivers, but for all software. Apple just plain likes closed systems, so I'm too pessimistic to imagine them opening up to the x86 world without imposing some hinderance to being open.

Not really. Today Apple can differentiate themselves from x86. They are good at marketing, and they managed to convince quite a few people the G5 is actually better than pentiums or athlons at a lot of apps. Just how would they even try to do that, when they use the same hardware (with a significant price premium that further more limits your software choices) ? Tough sell if you ask me. It will completely expose the premium you have to pay just to be able to run Mac OS-X and not run any x86 windows apps or games. Apple might as well just sell OS-X for that premium and let it run on Dell hardware. It would instantly increase their market potential by a factor 10x while mostly giving the same benefits/costs to its customers.

I believe in exactly the same logic. I'm just more pessimistic because I look at Apple's history and their market share. Would it be wise for them to do something different? Damn skippy. Will Apple do something wise? I doubt it. Apple is falling to pieces.

At least in the old days of the Mac Apple had the insight to do something good, like clear instructions on how to write a GUI, and more or less forcing all software developers to stick to a look, feel, and intuitiveness that matched their own in-house software. Now a days with Tiger they can't even keep a consistant look and feel in their own OS. :O

Apple is just simply falling apart at the seams. Unless someone there finally grows a brain, they're going to continue to lose market share until Apple (Macintosh) becomes like Commodore (Amiga).

IMHO, it would make more sense for Apple to sell OS-X and apps to Dell users than sell x86 hardware to apple customers.

I agree completely.

Heck, I'm surprised that SOHO operating systems in general are still sold. I half expected Linux to force OS vendors to offer completely free supportless SOHO OS options and concentrate on selling support and/or OS options with 'professional' and 'server' aspects. But then Linux has been a letdown in a large number of ways, so it's no wonder that it hasn't forced this sales model yet.

As I see it, Apple really is a software (and marketing) company, and Stevie Wonder will come to realize that sooner or later. iPod sales can only mask its losses in the computing business for so long.

**ROFL** Yeah. I couldn't agree more, but I'm also unconvinced that anyone at Apple is capable of seeing this, because the cards are already laid clear on the table and still nothing is being done. I think everyone at Apple must be living in a fantasy world that's totally lost touch with reality already.

<pre>Jesters do oft prove prophets. -Regan in
King Lear (Act V, Scene iii) by William Shakespear</pre>@ 188K -> 200,000 miles or bust!

slvr_phoenix · May 27, 2005

here's another outlook.

...

Im not so confident in this idea. but only time will tell

An interesting notion, but one that I have a hard time believing. There would be a huge rift in common sense caused by compiling the same software for both systems and trying to actually market and support this. The porting itself is bad enough, but actually maintaining both sides of the port at the same time is horrible. Combine that with confused customers that have a hard enough time using mice with only one button...

With emulation it makes that a little better, but only so long as you actually halt one system and clearly move onto the next one. Keeping both alive simultaneously would ammount to suicide, IMHO.

<pre>Jesters do oft prove prophets. -Regan in
King Lear (Act V, Scene iii) by William Shakespear</pre>@ 188K -> 200,000 miles or bust!

P4Man · May 27, 2005

You're being too pessimistic about apple's (Or Steve Jobs) abilities or insights I think. Have a look <A HREF="http://finance.yahoo.com/q/bc?t=2y&s=AAPL&l=off&z=l&q=l&c=msft&c=^IXIC" target="_new">at this chart</A>

Not quite a Commodore story yet if you ask me.

Now I agree most of that of that profit and stock surge has nothing to do with Macintosh, but everything with iPod and digital media, but it still shows Jobs knows what he is doing.

= The views stated herein are my personal views, and not necessarily the views of my wife. =

slvr_phoenix · May 31, 2005

I don't think I can even dignify that with a reasonable response. I'm just laughing too hard. I'm sorry, but I can only see Apple's success there as pure luck. The player itself was blah. The software certainly didn't win anyone over on the PC side. And the online store is like the player, a dime a dozen with many better solutions out there. The only reason that there was any success there was just pure luck, not skill.

And even then, the PC portion of the company is still crashing and burning. The iPod + iTunes fad won't save it forever.

<pre>Jesters do oft prove prophets. -Regan in
King Lear (Act V, Scene iii) by William Shakespear</pre>@ 189K -> 200,000 miles or bust!

Zoron · May 31, 2005

Now I'm no big fan of Apple, but I do have to disagree with you on the iPod, Silver. Having owned one for almost 6 months now... I have to say I love it. As for iTunes... meh, it does what I need it to do and does it well. I have a friend that swears by it even though he doesn't own an iPod.

 If you design software that is fool-proof, only a fool will want to use it.

slvr_phoenix · Jun 1, 2005

Now I'm no big fan of Apple, but I do have to disagree with you on the iPod, Silver. Having owned one for almost 6 months now... I have to say I love it.

I'm not saying that the iPod itself is bad. I'm saying how exactly is your iPod actually better than the millions of other MP3 players out there? There are cheaper players that have more storage, the same or better user interface, support more audio file formats, and have better usage with a PC.

The iPod's only real claim to fame is that had actual advertising. Well, that and it came from Apple, a company already near and dear to an awful lot of students (AKA media consumers) in the US thanks mostly to Apple's decades old school incentives.

As for iTunes ... overpriced DRM garbage IMHO. There are plenty of places that you can get much of the same. More importantly though, there are some places where you can legally download for cheaper (even if the legalities are morally questionable). And then there's the illegal downloads for free of course. But most important of all as far as I've seen is not downloading at all, but simple fire trading/sharing between friends of ripped CDs.

Again, I'm not saying that iPod or iTunes are bad. I'm saying that they're just one of the many solutions out there, and certainly not the best. It's just luck that Apple is making so much money off of them. It could have been anyone else becoming the winning fad amongst all those players. Just like it could have been any other DOS vendor that had won the DOS wars instead of M$.

<pre>Jesters do oft prove prophets. -Regan in
King Lear (Act V, Scene iii) by William Shakespear</pre>@ 189K -> 200,000 miles or bust!

cdpage · Jun 2, 2005

yes you can...
its just expencive...

some ways here. <A HREF="http://www.ipodlounge.com/index.php/faqs/answers/can-i-replace-the-ipods-battery-myself/" target="_new">click</A>

<A HREF="http://www.digitalgunfire.com" target="_new">DigitalGunfire-Industrial EBM</A>
ASUS P4S8X-P4 2.4B - 2x512M DDR333 - ATI 9500Pro - WD80G HD(8M) - SAMSUNG SV0844D 8G HD - LG 16X DVD - Yamaha F1 CDRW

Zoron · Jun 2, 2005

Not when your iPod is over $400.

:tongue:

Actually, funny story... I accidentally left my iPod in my jeans pocket when doing the laundry. I let it dry out thoroughly, then plugged it in. Surprisingly, it powered on. Not surprisingly... it wasn't 100%. The hard drive was definately noisier... but it was able to play all the music. The only real problem was that the battery wouldn't charge. I did a service request through Apple's website... and one week after sending the iPod out for service... I had a new iPod. I consider that excellent service. (And no... I didn't tell them about the iPod being washed... lol)

I don't buy music online yet... so I have no clue about that part of iTunes.

 If you design software that is fool-proof, only a fool will want to use it.

cdpage · Jun 3, 2005

i have heard many stories about laptops...repairs on Roms are usually replaced after a one or two returns.

whole new laptop because of slightly loose caseing.

from all my stories... i only ever hear of full replacements....tho often after more then one try

<A HREF="http://www.digitalgunfire.com" target="_new">DigitalGunfire-Industrial EBM</A>
ASUS P4S8X-P4 2.4B - 2x512M DDR333 - ATI 9500Pro - WD80G HD(8M) - SAMSUNG SV0844D 8G HD - LG 16X DVD - Yamaha F1 CDRW

P4Man · Jun 3, 2005

>I'm sorry, but I can only see Apple's success there as pure
>luck.

Luck ? Nah, I don't think so. Apple is good at spotting trends and moving quickly. Its really not luck they where the first major player to bet on the MP3 market and even (legally) allow you to purchase digital music. Its no coincidence either Apple was selling "Airports" like half a decade before intel cooked up the Centrino brand and pretended to have invented wireless networking. They had the Apple Newton long before MS/HP/Dell discovered the PDA market.

>The player itself was blah. The software certainly didn't
>win anyone over on the PC side.

Oh, but indeed its most likely not the best product out there. Toyed with one myself, and honestly, *I* don't like it ; its far too big and heavy, and it sucks that you can not even synch on more than one PC. I wanted to put some songs on it for a friend, and before I knew what was happening, Itunes wiped out the Ipod harddisk and started copying my entire collection to it LOL. Now that said, there is an opensource alternative that will let you do what you want, including copying from ipod to PC/mac.

Anyway, point is not wether ipod is the best product out there; its the best selling though, because it is seen as the 'real' thing, while all the samsung and iriver players are seen as cheap clones. two simple reasons for that: early on the market, and terrific marketing. Neither of that is luck.

In another post you talk about the possibility of the Dos war being won by someone else.. good example, there *where* far superior Doses out there (DrDos comes to mind), there where even multitaksing versions of Dos (was it DrDos ? Don't remember). yet it isnt surprising either Microsofts horrible MSDos won that one. As they won with windows against a superior OS (OS/2), with IE against netscape, etc, etc. None of that is luck, even though it really doesn't require the technically best products to make it a success.

>And even then, the PC portion of the company is still
>crashing and burning.

I assume so, even though I don't have any numbers. OTOH I wouldn't be surprised if iBooks did rather well. Dislike apple all you want, their laptops are really nice if you can live with OS-X, and next time you are on a plane, have a look around. Quite a few people use them.

>The iPod + iTunes fad won't save it forever

True, but unlike most other big IT companies, at least Apple has shown its ability to adapt and make other (niche) products outside their historical core business commercial successes. Intel has been trying that for decades. Apple keeps reinventing itself; how many other companies do you know that succesfully changed ISA *and* moved to a completely new OS without losing most of its users in the process ? Luck ? I don't think so.

Now, I don't know what apple will end up making a living on a decade from here, but I suspect it will be better at finding lucrative new markets than Intel, HP or even Dell. Of course Dell will copy any really succesfull ideas and undercut their prices, but probably not before Apple made a good penny out of it.

I won't buy a Mac before hell freezes over, but if their stock wherent so overpriced, I'd be willing to take a gamble there

= The views stated herein are my personal views, and not necessarily the views of my wife. =

RX8 · Jun 5, 2005

dident B Gates take a lot of tech from apples in early 1980 and basically ripped apple off?

 BOW DOWN AND SUCK MY eD!cK

RX8 · Jun 5, 2005

what a wanka!

 BOW DOWN AND SUCK MY eD!cK

RichPLS · Jun 5, 2005

Yeah, they were bannanas for Apple, but Bill pealed nearly every one leaving just Apple.
The switch to Intel will make Apple HOT!

<pre>°¤o,¸¸¸,o¤°`°¤o \\// o¤°`°¤o,¸¸¸,o¤°
And the sign says "You got to have a membership card to get inside" Huh
So I got me a pen and paper And I made up my own little sign</pre>

RichPLS · Jun 5, 2005

Gates took a lot of technology . . . but not legally.

Atari used "windows", but paid royalties to Apple.

Bill Gates was sued and paid (possibly in a settlement) back to Apple for ripping them off.

<pre>°¤o,¸¸¸,o¤°`°¤o \\// o¤°`°¤o,¸¸¸,o¤°
And the sign says "You got to have a membership card to get inside" Huh
So I got me a pen and paper And I made up my own little sign</pre>

RichPLS · Jun 5, 2005

Both Mac & MS licensed the same windowing kernel from PARC - Palo Alto Research Center.
DOS's underlying layer, BIOS (Basic Input Output System), was adapted from CP/M's IOCS (Input Output Control System). Both systems and code are similar.

Gates took a lot of technology . . . but not legally.

Atari used "windows", but paid royalties to Apple.

Bill Gates was sued and paid (possibly in a settlement) back to Apple for ripping them off.

<pre>°¤o,¸¸¸,o¤°`°¤o \\// o¤°`°¤o,¸¸¸,o¤°
And the sign says "You got to have a membership card to get inside" Huh
So I got me a pen and paper And I made up my own little sign</pre>

Xeon · Jun 5, 2005

Gates took a lot of technology . . . but not legally.

More of your conspiracy theories?

-Jeremy Dach

RichPLS · Jun 5, 2005

There are the facts involved...

<pre>°¤o,¸¸¸,o¤°`°¤o \\// o¤°`°¤o,¸¸¸,o¤°
And the sign says "You got to have a membership card to get inside" Huh
So I got me a pen and paper And I made up my own little sign</pre>

RichPLS · Jun 5, 2005

MS was not sued by Apple for ripping them off. They were sued because they adapted the same windowing kernel to allow overlapping windows instead of side-by-side or tiled windows which Apple had also adapted.
It was more or less a matter of "you copied my user interface look and feel" issue than anything else.
Apple did NOT invent Windows!!
It was developed by Xerox's PARC team in the late 70s/early 80s.

<pre>°¤o,¸¸¸,o¤°`°¤o \\// o¤°`°¤o,¸¸¸,o¤°
And the sign says "You got to have a membership card to get inside" Huh
So I got me a pen and paper And I made up my own little sign</pre>

slvr_phoenix · Jun 6, 2005

Luck ? Nah, I don't think so. Apple is good at spotting trends and moving quickly. Its really not luck they where the first major player to bet on the MP3 market and even (legally) allow you to purchase digital music. Its no coincidence either Apple was selling "Airports" like half a decade before intel cooked up the Centrino brand and pretended to have invented wireless networking. They had the Apple Newton long before MS/HP/Dell discovered the PDA market.

You make some interesting points here, and I will admit that from your perspective it is a lot more than luck. It's marketing and educated risk taking backed by the strength of what used to be a solid brand name to continue their reputation.

However, from my perspective, Apple is like a pendulum. They succeed, then they fade, then they come back, then they slip again, and so forth. During any of their wanings they could have gone under. The fact that Apple still exists today is a large amount of luck, mixed in with a good dose of riding on the coat-tails of their very early achievements. Well, that and raw unadulterated fanaticism. 😉

Honestly, had Apple computers not suffused schools so thoroughly in the '80s (and carried through the '90s), do you think that they would even exist today? I honestly don't think that anything Apple has done lately can ever compare to the long-lasting results of warping the minds of youth in their image. :O

As they won with windows against a superior OS (OS/2), with IE against netscape, etc, etc. None of that is luck, even though it really doesn't require the technically best products to make it a success.

Again, I guess it all comes down to a matter of perspective. You can consider the effects of marketing as the results, or various other factors at that. But in the end what made ISVs decide to support Windows over OS/2? What made Netscape decide to go purist and annoy their own customers so greatly that IE finally was able to pull ahead in the race? What exact factors caused the ebb and flow of the cosmos to change in favor of one side or another?

Some people will believe that these things were decided by clear factors such as superior marketing, underhanded anticompetitive tricks, or who knows what. And that once you uderstand these factors you can predict similar outcomes with this knowledge.

I however am of the opinion that it really is just about luck. Eventually someone has to win the race. Competing standards won't last forever in a marketplace without one eventually taking a significant share. We can believe that certain events tip the scales, that probability can be clearly factored. But IMHO something will always tip those scales eventually, no matter what that something may be, or even how silly that something may be, simply because people don't like living in duality. And what decides what tips those scapes is really just a matter of luck. The actual trigger is just a pretense of the market's desire to evade the duality somehow. They're subconsciously just looking for any excuse to jump to one side, and any excuse would do. That's my opinion. It may not be the most technical, and it definately isn't predictable, but then that's pretty much the definition of luck, isn't it?

Hence my point of view. While there may be many factors that we can try to weigh, in many cases the survival of competing companies/standards/etc. is more a matter of luck than anything else. Someone has to win. Someone has to lose. Logic is rarely the deciding factor. And time is the sickle that weeds out the unlucky.

True, but unlike most other big IT companies, at least Apple has shown its ability to adapt and make other (niche) products outside their historical core business commercial successes.

If you example Apple by a 'core business' model, then it certainly looks like Apple is quite good at being experimental. If however you look at Apple as an artistic medium more than a technology core business, then they're not really adapting or ranging outside of their business at all. They've made their niche and their clinging to it.

Now, I don't know what apple will end up making a living on a decade from here, but I suspect it will be better at finding lucrative new markets than Intel, HP or even Dell.

Possibly, but only so lond as those 'lucrative new markets' are directly related to the same niche that Apple has carved out for itself. Meanwhile more money will be made by Intel, HP, Dell, etc. who are happy to leave Apple's its niche while they have sizeable pieces of the remaining expanse of their respective markets.

Really, their 'markets' are quite different and only slightly overlapping. Apple is in the media business. Intel et al are in the PC business.

<pre>Jesters do oft prove prophets. -Regan in
King Lear (Act V, Scene iii) by William Shakespear</pre>@ 189K -> 200,000 miles or bust!

slvr_phoenix · Jun 6, 2005

dident B Gates take a lot of tech from apples in early 1980 and basically ripped apple off?

**ROFL** Hardly. Billy-boy could barely program his way out of a paper bag. Since his very beginnings most of what he 'produced' was code written by someone else with his name put on it. Sometimes legally, and sometimes not. He has ripped things off, but not from Apple.

If Mac lovers want to rant on the growth of the PC from ripping something off, how about the first sound card hardware for PCs being a reverse-engineering (if you can even call it that much) of the Amiga's sound system. That was nasty, and more or less the death knell of the Amiga since it made a huge difference in the PC's gaming experience.

<pre>Jesters do oft prove prophets. -Regan in
King Lear (Act V, Scene iii) by William Shakespear</pre>@ 189K -> 200,000 miles or bust!

apesoccer · Jun 6, 2005

Huh, it was my understanding that Apple allowed MS to use/copy some of it's OS software (and ideas), but due to a loop hole in the legal write-up, they screwed themselves, giving MS access to more then what apple intended. Thus Windows looks alot like Mac OS...

yea i know thats the extremely trimmed down version...

F@H:
AMD: [64 3000+][2500+][2000+ down][1.3x2][366]
Intel: [X 3.0x3][P4 3.0x2][P4 2.4x5 down][P4 1.4]

"...and i'm not gay" RX8 -Greatest Quote of ALL Time

Apple - Intel Inside?

Distinguished

Splendid

Distinguished

Distinguished

Splendid

Splendid

Distinguished

Splendid

Splendid

Splendid

Distinguished

Splendid

Distinguished

Distinguished

Distinguished

Distinguished

Champion

Champion

Champion

Distinguished

Champion

Champion

Splendid

Splendid

Distinguished

Share this page