Dvorak, will Apple adopt windows?

http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,1895,1923151,00.asp

An intersting article from the guy that predicted Apple would be switching to Intel. Frankly, I find it doubtful, but he does make some intersting points.

Jobs has always said that Apple is a hardware company, so from a bottom line standpoint, cutting out expensive OS development and just concentrating on the hardware, coupled with the big plus (business wise) of selling computers that appeal to the non-geek masses and business users, could result in Apple selling more computers than they do right now. Premium branded laptops and desktops are what Apple is known for anyways, so they would still be able to compete effectively against the likes of Dell and HP.

The big downside, of course, would be that a good part of the current Apple userbase would freak out, but in the end, where would they end up going? Other PC vendors and installing Linux or BSD? And maybe Apple would spin-off OSX to a seperate company to compete with Windows directly, and Apple could then offer customers a choice between the two OSes on their computers.

Anyways, just kicking around ideas-- like I said, at this point I find it doubtful, but I pretty much thought that the Intel thing wasn't going to happen either....

There was already a thread on this not even a week ago...

http://www.mac-forums.com/forums/showthread.php?t=30770&highlight=adopt

Exactly. I shouldn't need to point out that people switch to mac because of OS X more often than for other reasons. I can see people setting up their macs to dual-boot, but how many of us would use windows exclusively, if given the choice? (Hint: this is MAC FORUMS...)

Sorry about the dupe-- though the other thread seems to be mostly just flaming and not much discussion.

Of course, the best course would be if Apple was to get behind Darwine, so that you could run your "must have" windows aps under OSX. I've played a bit with a commercial variant of Wine called crossover office with Linux, and the thing certainly has potential.

I really not commited to any one OS, but use windows the most because of necessity-- at work, proprietary apps, need for industry standard CAD/CAM, and have to use office 2003, plus at home I do some gaming, though not so much any more. A Mac that could run all that stuff would be ideal.

So basically what the guy who wrote the original article thinks, is that Apple are going to totally alienate their entire current customer base who use their computers mainly because of OS X and it's software and try and sell PCs like Dell?
Hmmm....I really hope that no business employs that guy to design their company roadmap.

I all seriousness, Apple's biggest markets.....as far as I know are Education, Music, Video etc, in no specific order. All of those institutions use Apple Computers becuase of they are different and different in a positive way, their operating system and software is better for what these groups of people are trying to achieve. I can tell you for starters, as someone who has been involved in the music industry at a pretty high level, every professional studio in the world does not buy Macs just because they feel like paying twice the price of a Dell. They buy Macs because Macs, with their OS and software, provide a better computing solution than anything revolving around the Windows world.

So the notion that Apple are going to forget all of this and try and sell people computers with Windows, basically like a Dell or any other company.....amusing, but pretty crazy at the same time.

Steve Jobs himself doesn't like Microsoft. The way I'd know him (from the tons of books and stuff I've read about this great man), he won't do a thing to please Microsoft unless utterly necessary for the compan's health. He did it in 97, but now Apple is strong. They are making HUGE Money. They have culture in their products. Steve Jobs stated that Microsoft has no tast "in a big way" to cite him. He won't bend like that for a reason that isn't there.

Roz ** meant development for 5 years concerning Universal Binaries. After that they'll develop Intel-Only.
The reason why Apple get's so egdey about these things is they are very rigorous about their image and what gets out and what doesn't. They want their Marketing schemes to work perfectly and don't like meddling.

They also see themselves as a computer solution company, not really a hardware company. to them, there should be no distinction to the user, it's just the computer and the way it works. Schiller once said "because Apple makes the software and the hardware that work together seamlessly, Apple can take on stuff no one else dare take on. It's one of the cool things Apple can do!"

So Apple's closed architecture is a strong selling point, because envirnments like the music industry or education, as has been mentioned, need stuff that just works.

Come to think about it, why does XP even sell?
I'd start crying if this whole thing were true. It wouldn't fit Apple's Philosophy. They're very appreciative of their fans.

If Apple stopped producing the Mac OS, it'd be like Nintendo not producing hardware.

Dvorak has a habit of producing these articles predicting "great change." It doesn't surprise me that he has taken this stance.

"The first was that the Apple Switch ad campaign was over, and nobody switched." um...has he seen any Apple market share figures? It may still be a small amount, but market share is noticeably increasing.

"The second was that the iPod lost its FireWire connector because the PC world was the new target audience. " I don't see these as being connected. It is simply more cost efficient to use one technology.

"Also, although the iPod was designed to get people to move to the Mac, this didn't happen." So what is this "Halo effect" that analysts around the world are talking about. Not only did the iPod save Apple, it has generated increased interest in Apple's other product offerings.

"This may also explain the odd comment at the Macworld Expo by a Microsoft spokesperson that Microsoft Office will continue to be developed for the Mac for "five years." This was simply the business agreement that was reached. Plus, when Microsoft stops supporting a project, Apple always provides an alternative. Look at Internet Explorer. iWork is starting to get good.

"This switch to Windows may have originally been planned for this year and may partly explain why Adobe and other high-end apps were not ported to the Apple x86 platform when it was announced in January." Ummm...Leopard anyone?

"By maintaining its own OS, Apple would have to suffer endless complaints about peripherals that don't work." That is different from the current state of things how?

When Dvorak "predicted" Apple would switch to Intel, he predicted
- The switch would occur sometime between March and September 2004
- The switch would involve a mac with "both the Intel and Motorola [PowerPC] processors"
- The Intel processor used would be the Itanium
(http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,4149,939886,00.asp)

Dvorak knows nothing about Apple or its business plan. He just picks outlandish scenarios and publishes them. Even a broken clock is right twice a day.

technologist said:

Dvorak knows nothing about Apple or its business plan. He just picks outlandish scenarios and publishes them. Even a broken clock is right twice a day.

Click to expand...

Well said

Talk about irony.

I'm getting ready to buy a MacMini BECAUSE OS X is virtually virus free.

Despite what the article says I think the Mini is a better reason to add an Apple coumputer to one's arsenal than the iPod.

And have little doubt that's the reason the Mini exists. It's a great way to introduce PC users that, like myself, are fed up with Windows viruses and vulnerabilities to the Apple family.

What possible reason would one have to buy an Apple computer running Windows when they could buy a (yeech) Dell - or build their own Windows box as I've been doing for years.

Granted there are quite likely some uber- faithful Apple users that would retain brand loyalty but that number would decline - quite likely fairly rapidly - as the reality of Apple's loss of uniqueness and freedom from viruses hit home.

Uncle Stevie knows this. He also really doesn't like Uncle Billy. No real surprise there.

One possible savior, in the event that Apple does switch to Windoze, might be the touch screen technology Apple recently filed a patent on. If that - and other similar innovations - could somehow by tied exclusively to an Apple Windows box (not all that difficult to do) then that would preserve a small user base.

Anyway - despite some interesting observations in the article - my bet is it won't happen.

bfx

technologist said:

When Dvorak "predicted" Apple would switch to Intel, he predicted
- The switch would occur sometime between March and September 2004
- The switch would involve a mac with "both the Intel and Motorola [PowerPC] processors"
- The Intel processor used would be the Itanium
(http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,4149,939886,00.asp)

Dvorak knows nothing about Apple or its business plan. He just picks outlandish scenarios and publishes them. Even a broken clock is right twice a day.

Click to expand...

What he does know how to do is rile up the mac community

To some extent I think he just does it to drum up hits on his column.