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 (14247)	6/3/1998 12:49:00 PM
From: rhet0ric	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 213177

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

To: Eric Yang who wrote (14247)	6/3/1998 4:20:00 PM
From: Jonathan Bird	Respond to of 213177

On the other hand, I think there are quite a few software developers on the Wintel side today that would like to port their applications to run on the Mac and take advatage of the better user interface etc....With MacOS/Intel the 90% PC install base suddenly becomes potential market. I hate to have to point out the obvious, but if they are already on the Wintel side then they already have the 90% PC install base as a potential market. They dont need to port to MacOS X to help them get that. Additionally, I imagine that many MacOS Intel users will run a dual boot system. Therefore, as more Mac users switch to Intel hardware, that also runs Windows, then the motivation for Win developers to make a Mac version will decrease. They can just sell the Windows version to Mac users without having to do any porting work. MacOS on Intel is good for three types of people. For the first two types of people it's good for the same reason that clones were good. Good for users because it gives them an inexpensive hardware alternative. And good for Mac developers because if inexpensive hardware sells more Macs then it increases the market for Mac programs. The third type of person it's good for is the Win developer because it gives them access to Mac users who switch to Intel hardware(and run Win dual boot) without having to make a MacOS port. It is also bad for Apple in the same way that clones were bad. But even worse because no PC manufacturer will have to buy motherboards or licenses from Apple. Before it will make sense to Apple to sell an Intel operating system they will have to stop being a hardware company, and start being a software company. Jon Bird