Current Mac users would therefore have to: 1) buy a whole new set of PC hardware
Exactly. Maybe I phrased it wrong. It wouldn't start with developers dropping their Mac versions. Rather, the series of events would go:
1) Mac/Wintel developers port to Carbon
2) Mac users upgrade to Carbon-compatible versions of their apps
3) Apple releases MacOSX/Intel
4) Mac users buy Intel PCs and install MacOSX/Intel, with a dual-boot to Windows
5) Mac/Wintel developers stop upgrading their Mac versions
6) MacOSX/Intel users upgrade to Windows versions of their apps
1, 2 and 3 have to happen for MacOSX/Intel to be of any interest. That brings us to 4. I think a large chunk of the current Mac marketplace would buy Intel PCs to run MacOSX, instead of PowerPCs. This is especially true of mixed-environment corporate users. Unless Apple is the one that sells them those "PCs", this alone could destroy Apple's profitability.
Let's do the arithmetic. MacOSX/Intel would have to be a consumer OS to have any effect on market share. That means it costs $50 pre-installed, or $100 off the shelf. Profit margins are maybe $25/copy. Profit margins on G3s are something like $400 (I'm guessing, I'm sure you have a better number). So if Apple doesn't build its own Intel boxes, it would need to sell 16 copies of its OS for every lost box sale. That just isn't going to happen.
But even scarier is the fact that 4 would create a large base of Mac users who are prime to be migrated to Windows--they already own the hardware. Many current Mac/Wintel developers are already questioning their dual effort. If a large portion of their Mac user base had the capability to run Windows, it would make supporting the Mac version that much harder to justify.
I think we agree that Apple could revolutionize itself and the industry by creating a MacOS that runs Mac (Carbon) apps on Intel hardware. And we both seem to be in favor of it. Where we differ is in our analysis of the risks. In my view, there is the possibility that, if mishandled, Apple could fall into a nightmare scenario in which they create a migration path from Mac to Windows. I'm saying that the best way to eliminate those risks is for Apple to offer Intel processors as a BTO option. I'm not sure why you would be against that.
rhet0ric |
