Re: That Didn't Take Too Long: MacTel Hacked



In article <leo-50A424.22010813082005@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
Leonard Blaisdell <leo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> In article <michelle-60667C.19551313082005@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
> Michelle Steiner <michelle@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> > In article <lije-F61463.21483713082005@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
> > Elijah Baley <lije@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >
> > > No hardware, no Apple. I hitched my wagon to Apple in 1982. I never
> > > thought I would say this but...Apple is doomed as a computer maker.
> > > Maybe they'll be making HDTVs, iPods, whatever. They won't be making
> > > Macs.
> >
> > In other words you're saying that Jobs doesn't know what he's doing.
> > I'll bet on Jobs, not on you.
>
> I divided my net worth by what has been reported as Steve Job's daily
> salary and found it was one to one. Well... I really didn't do that, but
> I wouldn't be far off. And he's been worth every penny.
> If he isn't able to outfigure some usenet sorry estimations, he's not
> the leader I think he is.
> I loved your statement. I disagree with your sig ;-)
>
> leo

I once got an email from Guy Kawasaki (really) during the time that SJ
ended cloning, and of course SJ ended it abruptly and in the most
autocratic way. I was outraged. Guy sent a long response, in which he
claimed only partial understanding of the situation, and ended with
"Steve is many things, but he is not stupid". I think that's right.

Now, that said, I also think SJ doesn't really care about the Mac the
way that some here do (or that I do). It's quite possible that Apple
will cease to make Macs in that the motherboards will come from Intel
and the laptop design will be done at least in collaboration with Sony.
So, in that sense "Apple is doomed as a computer maker".

However, you'll still be able to buy something that runs OSX. It will
probably, but not necessarily, be Apple-branded hardware. I think that
SJ is deadly serious about two things: (1) further implementation of the
digital hub strategy, including movies and video and subscription
services soon, (2) contesting with Microsoft for the desktop market.

The reasons given for the switch to Intel were, in my view, a
smokescreen. The real reason is the DRM on the Intel motherboards to
enable much more aggressive distribution of digital media, including
rentals, and to get a chance to fight again for the desktop market. Many
people have noted that Mactel machines will dual boot OSX/Windows, but I
think it goes further than that. Clearly, things like VMWare will let
you run OSX and Windows simultaneously. We are almost certain to get a
version of fast user switching that toggles between Windows and OSX.
With this as a transition, Apple can finally fight for the desktop. The
timing of this transition had nothing to do with any deficiencies in IBM
or PowerPC, or power consumption per cpu cycle: It was to get this all
done before Windows "Vista" arrives. Until that time, Apple has OSX
which just kicks WinXP around like a rag doll, but the opportunity ends
when Vista arrives.

One point in this that is a hazard to Apple and an opportunity for
PowerPC enthusiasts: At some point in the transition, I think between
Christmas and May 06, Apple sales are going to tank. If you want to buy
PowerPC laptop or a dual G5 for a great price, that will be the time. I
think the risk in that is negligible, since PowerPC Macs will be
supported for years, certainly the effective lifetime of a Mac bought in
early O6.

(I loved the statement, but -especially- the sig)
.