>Will Steve Jobs go back to closed systems, non-rhapsody strategy (he did not mention rhapsody even once in his Boston speech)?<
No. Absolutely not. When (not if) Rhapsody ships, that run-on-anything software will make *every* computer maker into a potential Mac cloner.
Where Jobs may want preserve AAPL's proprietary nature is on some of the high end desktop and laptop hardware -- or, more likely, he just may be just trying to get others to carry their weight of the marketing and development costs.
>IMHO, Apple's market share is beyond the point of recovery on its own. That is why it is so important for future Macs to be *out*of*the*box* Windows compatible.<
There are many paths towards sustained profitability. A shrinking share a growing market can still translate into increased cpu sales. And/or if these users purchase proportionately greater and more expensive software, developers will continue to write for the OS.
At the risk of overreaching, Rhapsody offers an entirely new software paradigm -- promising the ease of use of OS8, the stability of NT and the speed and scalability of UNIX.
Arguably, the developers who've already committed are enough to make the platform viable.
>For example, when the SysAdmin installed WinNT on my desktop I did not even flinch. Why? because I knew I could still use all the Win3.11 programs I had on my box, plus I would gain the famed NT stability.<
I think there lies the basis for the MSFT/AAPL alliance. MSFT licenses Rhapsody code for Windows 2000 and in return licenses all Windows NT/95/3.1 code to AAPL for compatability.
Anyhow, with regards to the future, favor us with your prediction (if it's not too much against your nature*.) What version of the future do you think will prevail?
Will this team of doctors make all the right moves re: licensing, alliances, development, hardware, marketing, etc. or will they "screw the pooch"?
soup
*In Jungian personality archetypes, one feature which distinguishes people is the importance they give to present vs. future events.
One type of person is concerned only with the matter as it now exists and believes all that's worth knowing is the information before them. Future possibilities are only a distraction.
The reverse is a person concerned only with the possibilities inherent in the situation. The present day realities are only a distraction.
Unalloyed, both archetypes will get themselves into a hell of a lot of trouble. Therapists working in this mode will counsel extreme cases to strengthen their "shadow sides" to achieve something of a balance.
Those interested can do some searching under "Carl Jung" or "Myers-Briggs". |
