Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Technology Stocks : Apple Inc. -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Eric Yang who wrote (14238)	6/2/1998 4:15:00 PM
From: HerbVic	Respond to of 213177

Your "Carbon to Diamond" hypothesis has merit in that it is possible and Microsoft, if cornered by the DOJ, may welcome it. However the real "Diamond" within the Carbon API set is the consolidation of the Mac OS into a core of hardened code defined as the future direction of the OS. There is little question as to which platform is the easiest to program for. The convoluted legacy of Windows past evolution is a morass of dependencies that must be gang busted by development teams, within which segmented individuals specialize. Even then Microsoft has the reputation of non-full disclosure, which often traps software companies trying to compete with Msft on the Windows OS. The Mac OS on the other hand has had the reputation of being too wishy washy in defining its direction. Some feel that too much effort was put into reinventing instead of innovating. Hopefully, developers will see Mac OSX as a stabilizing influence on the direction of the platform. What remains to be seen at this point in time is how successful Apple will be at convincing developers that the ground under the Mac OS is now stable and profitable to produce for. HerbVic

To: Eric Yang who wrote (14238)	6/2/1998 5:48:00 PM
From: rhet0ric	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 213177

If Apple ports Carbon and MacOS to x86 there would be no danger of losing developers! [...] The good thing is that if Carbon and MacOS X were ported these developers can simply write the application once and compile it to run either on PowerPC or x86. The danger is that, instead of developers using the Mac APIs, they would use Win32. They would tell their installed Mac base to buy a PC, use their existing apps on MacOSX/Intel, and transition to Wintel to use new apps. Every important Apple developer currently maintains two development efforts. I'm sure they would love to cut that to one. But they will never do so by dropping their Win32 effort. (Yellow Box is only relevant to new app and former OpenStep developers, so it doesn't really apply). I think the majority of the current Mac users will still be buying Mac hardware. Okay, but what majority? 90%? So, what if 10% of Mac users buy a $100 MacOS (and an Intel PC made by someone else) instead of a $2500 PowerPC box? That would kill Apple's profitability instantly. Many Mac users who are unsure of the future of the Mac platform would hedge their bets and buy a PC, since if Apple died they could use it to run Windows. Or they would buy a PC so that they could dual-boot, which would also slaughter Apple over time. So the number would probably be higher than 10%. Apple is in a somewhat different situation from IBM, since it does have an installed based of users and apps, which OS/2 never really managed. But there is a possible vicious cycle. rhet0ric