Unitil recently, I felt that Apple's controversial actions were highly unwise. It even caused me to loose confidence in Steve Jobs and to become upset with him. But now I feel differently. I envision a possible plan in which Steve Jobs' and Apple's recent actions make sense for Apple, Apple's licensees, the Mac hardware and software markets, and Mac users. If my analysis of the reasons behind Apple's actions are close to the truth, then there are many reasons to once again have a favorable opinion of Apple and Steve Jobs. How can this be, you may ask?
Consider the following facts, rumors, and analysises. Also consider my speculation as what may be Steve Jobs' grand plan for Apple.
1. Several months ago several analysts said that they believed that PowerComputing didn't have a serious interest in the Mac market as a long-term business. These analysts beleived that PowerComputing wanted computer experience and name recognition - so that PowerComputing could later be successful at entering the Wintel market. Many of Power's advertisements poked fun/insulted Apple.
2. Apple recently agreed to pay PowerComputing $100 million for Power's Mac OS license, their direct sales expertise, and their database of ex-Apple customers (Apple said that about 99% of Power's customers were former Apple customers).
3. Power maintains its factories and its name. It does not become a subsidiary of Apple computer. It can use the money, received from Apple, to create its Wintel market.
Many of the people and companies that bought Mac systems from Power will likely end up buying Wintel systems from Power rather than return to Apple. This is because many of these people prefer Power's design and marketing and they are loosing confidence in Apple. Many of the compaines that bought Power's systems were on the verge of buying Wintel systems instead. As a result, Power has lost little and may very well have planned its sale to Apple from the very beginning. They might have deliberately pressured Apple to buy its Mac business - rather than Apple being the bad guy that forced Power to leave the Mac business! If this is true, then Apple did the right thing for the Mac market by buying out the Mac business of a company that was tearing down Apple's image and taking its business.
4. When have you seen IBM or Motorola promote the PowerPC for Mac hardware on television or in magazines and newspapers? I've not seen any televised PowerPC ads by IBM or Motorola, though I've seen a few computer magazine PowerPC ads. Contrast this with the advertising by Intel, Microsoft, Apple, and AMD.
5. The primary intent of Mac OS licensing was to rapidly expand the Mac OS market, instead most of the cloners took Apple's hardware sales while only insignificantly expanding the Mac OS market.
6. Apple has both hardware and software R & D costs that are financed by only a small market share of the personal computer market. Apple must develop and manufacture its own motherboards (although others have come up with their own CHRP designs), develop its own OS, manufacture its own systems, and sell its systems to what is now a small market. Whereas Wintel vendors can buy motherboards from Intel, have their advertising partly paid for by Intel if they use Intel processors, and buy their OS from Microsoft. As a result, they have both lower R & D and manufacturing costs than Apple.
7. It has been said that other manufacturers of integrated workstations and operating systems do not freely license the version of their OS designed for the processors that their high end systems use. The reason is due to enormous R & D costs of the manufacturers of integrated workstations and operating systems. Conisder Sun Microsystems and Silicon Graphics. How many cloners of Sun Microsystems hardware make high end systems using Sun's Solaris operating system on Sun's UltraSparc processors? How many cloners of Silicon Graphics hardware make high end systems using Silicon Graphics' Cellaur IRIX or IRIX operating systems on Silicolon Graphics' MIPS processors (MIPS Group is now a division of Silicon Graphics and Cray Research is now a wholly-owned subsidiary of Silicon Graphics)?
It begins to make sense why Apple would try to dramatically raise license fees, encourage licencees to enter new markets, get tough with IBM and Motorola, form an alliance with Microsoft, develop Apple's next generation OS for Intel/x-86 compatibles in addition to PowerPC, not include a Mac OS compatibilty box in the Intel version of Rhapsody, and consider making Intel based Rhapsody and/or Windows NT servers and/or Network Computers.
8. Several months ago analysts said they thought Umax might make boards/systems for Apple. These analysts also said they expected that Power Computing wanted to get into the Mac market only so as to prepare itself for later entrance into the Wintel market.
If Umax makes CHRP logic boards/computers for Apple, this would let Umax develop and sell CHRP technology even if they aren't allowed to sell Umax branded CHRP systems. Other cloners may end up doing the same. In fact I suggested that Apple consider having cloners make systems for them, see paragraphs two and five of the September 10, 1997 article entitled "How Apple is Hurting the Mac and PowerPC Platform." This would bring down Apple's hardware R&D and manufacturing costs while promoting competition in the Mac CRHP hardware design market. It could even be an interim step for Apple gradually exiting the hardware business - without a painful loss in revenue.
Umax recently demoed a CHRP systrem in Europe, but they currently deny having intentions of selling this system to the public (per MacInTouch of 9-23-97). Perhaps Umax intends to license/sell the CHRP system to Apple. Maybe Apple will let Umax sell the system in Asia.
My ideas about Apple's plans include many things that I mentioned in my previous articles. This article can be thought of as a comprehensive source of my current expectations from Apple. Apple Recon have their ideas that are expressed in their "Brave New Apple" article, which is currently only availabe to subscribers. I am not aware of the contents of that article, except for those portions that they have made public to non-subscibers.
(1) Apple officially says that Rhapsody will run Mac OS, OPENSTEP/Rhapsody, Mach/BSD UNIX, Pure Java, and Microsoft Java applications. Rhapsody is rumored to be able to also run applications for MS/PC-DOS,Windows 3.x/95/98/NT, and possibly OS/2 and others (via O/S 2 code licensed from IBM). PowerPC versions are rummored to contain a fast Intel x86 emulator. See Apple Recon at: Analysis: Barron's "Going Soft" -- Things Missed. Also see the "Apple mulls radical shift - Macs may embrace Windows to entice enterprise" article in the July 29, 1996 printed issue of PC Week, on page 1. If these things come true, the Rhapsody OS will be a universal OS and development of a PowerPC version of Windows NT will probably never be revived. At the very least Rhapsody could become the dominant UNIX based OS (knocking out Solaris and AIX - unless these sytems later use Apple technology that goes beyond the graphical user interface). The official name of Rhapsody might become Apple OS Millennium. The Intel and PowerPC versions are lilely to be in the same box (so as to minimize customer confusion and to make it easier for Wintel users to later switch to PowerPC systems).
(2) Even non-Rhapsody Macs are likely to include Windows compatiblity via a pre-installed Pentium PC emulator (such as Virtual PC by Connectix).
(3) Apple's Power Macs are likely to eventually become CHRP (Common Hardware Reference Platform) systems. As such, they will be able to use many IBM based PC parts as well as Mac based parts. Therefore, such Macs will have a somewhat universal hardware.
(4) Rhapsody will run on PowerPC and Intel. It is rumored to also possibly run on Digital Equipment Corp.'s Alpha. (As a side note, DEC ran an ad for the Alpha in the November 1997 issue of MacWorld (at least in the USA edition)). Rhapsody/OPENSTEP applications can run on OPENSTEP, Windows 95/NT, and Solaris. They will also be able to run on Mac OS.
(5) Apple's Mac OS licensing program is being restructured to grow the Mac OS market with only minimal loss of Apple's hardware sales.
(6) Apple's Rhapsody/OPENSTEP licensing program will likely be structured to grow the total Apple OS market (and applications for the Apple OS market), with very little loss of Apple's hardware sales. Expect to see Apple aggressively market the Intel version of Rhapsody.
(7) To help maintain the Mac OS market and increase hardware sales, Apple will sell Apple-branded Mac OS-based Network Computer clients connected to Rhapsody servers via Fast Ethernet networks in early 1998, per Mac Week (see Apple to intro Mac NCs in '98). This will take place under the direction of Apple's new interim-CEO, Steve Jobs. It looks like the product will be called the Apple NC.
(8) As part of its support of industry standards, Apple will likely produce an Intel (or compatible) x86-based Windows NT sever. This will enable Apple to sell more Macs to companies that use both Macs and Wintel PCs. This is becasue those compaines can now obtain larger volume purchasing by using one supplier for both computer platforms. For such companies, Apple will likely provide excellent connectivity software for the two systems. However, because the Wintel desktop market is highly competive, Apple is not likely to produce any Wintel desktop computers prior to January 2000.
(9) Based upon Apple's recent press release, it appears likely that Apple will begin a new multi-million dollar marketing campaign on Sunday 9-28-97 that will finally be outstanding. This will likely cause many Wintel users and non-computer owners to buy computers from Apple.
(10) Umax might make CHRP logic boards/computers for Apple. If this happens it will let UMAX develop and sell CHRP technology even if they aren't allowed to sell UMAX branded CHRP systems. Other cloners may end up doing the same. This would bring down Apple's hardware R&D and manufacturing costs while promoting competition in the Mac CRHP hardware design market. It could even be an interim step for Apple gradually exiting the hardware business - without a painful losss in revenue.
With this issuse, the word "and" was dropped from between the words "News" and "Analysis" because this publication is focused on being an analysis of the news. This is in contrast to major coverage of the news with only occasional analysis of it. Detailed news (and rumors that often come true) about Apple, the PowerPC Platform, and Apple compatible operating systems can be found at the excellent sites referenced in this publication. The major sources are listed at the bottom of this publication.
It was orignally intended that this publication (which began on September 4, 1997) include articles of the options of running PowerPC versions of Windows NT, Solaris, BeOS, and AIX on CHRP systems. However it was recently decided that little attention will be directed to these systems, except for BeOS and AIX. The title and/or subtitle of this publication may change as a result. That is because this month Apple announced it is severely restricting Mac OS licensing and insists that Mac OS licensees are not allowed to ship CHRP systems with the Mac OS. Also I don't know any companies shipping CHRP systems with a non-Apple OS. It now appears that Apple may become the only CHRP manufacturer. As a result there will likely be little development of non-Apple operating systems for CHRP. Windows NT and Solaris have been only partly ported to the PowerPC. Nonetheless I intend to include a discussion of the the above mentioned operating systems in October.
The BeOS and AIX are a different story however. This is because the BeOS has already been ported to certain Apple Power Macs. It has also been bundled with some of PowerComputing's Mac clones. Also Apple has sold PowerPC servers running IBM's AIX. By the way, NeXT Computers (later known as Next Software and now part of Apple Computers as Apple Enterprise (http://enterprise.apple.com/)) licenced the NextStep graphical interface to IBM, back in 1988, for inclusion into AIX (see the October 17 and 24, 1988 articles of "PC Week" entitled "Jobs tells what's NeXT: IBM likes it for RT, PS-2" on page 1 and "IBM's NeXT deal may hurt Gates" on page 76, respectively).
(2) Apple's Power Macs are likely to eventually become CHRP (Common Hardware Reference Platform) systems. As such, they will be able to use many IBM based PC parts as well as Mac based parts. Therefore, such Macs will have a somewhat universal hardware.
(3) Rhapsody will run on PowerPC and Intel. It is rumored to also possibly run on Digital Equipment Corp.'s Alpha. (As a side note, DEC ran an ad for the Alpha in the November 1997 issue of MacWorld (at least in the USA edition)). Rhapsody/OPENSTEP applications can run on OPENSTEP, Windows 95/NT, and Solaris. They will also be able to run on Mac OS.
(4) Apple's Mac OS licensing program is being restructured to grow the Mac OS market with only minimal loss of Apple's hardware sales.
(5) Apple's Rhapsody/OPENSTEP licensing program will likely be structured to grow the total Apple OS market (and applications for the Apple OS market), with very little loss of Apple's hardware sales.
(6) To help maintain the Mac OS market and increase hardware sales, Apple will sell Apple-branded Mac OS-based Network Computer clients connected to Rhapsody servers via Fast Ethernet networks in early 1998, per Mac Week (see Apple to intro Mac NCs in '98). This will take place under the direction of Apple's new interim-CEO, Steve Jobs.
(7) As part of its support of industry standards, Apple will likely produce an Intel (or compatible) x86-based Windows NT sever. However, because the Wintel desktop market is highly competive, Apple is not likely to produce any Wintel desktop computers prior to January 2000.
Oracle promotes the Network Computer (NC) it includes no hard drive, floppy drive, CD-ROM drive, or operating system (everything is handled by the server, and an internet access set-top box could be an NC). Intel and Microsoft promote the NetPC which includes a hard drive, an Intel processor, and Microsoft Windows. It is rumored that Apple is developing a stripped down Mac as an NC. Such a product would essentailly be an Apple version of a NetPC because it would include a hard drive. I think that these products should be called NetMacs or NetPowerMacs, rather than NCs.
Currently Apple's next OS, which is based upon OPENSTEP, is code-named Rhapsody. Some people have suggessted that the final name be "Millennium." I think that an ever better name would be "Apple OS Millennium." Not only does it invoke positive feelings associated with the next millennium, but it also implies that Apple will make it into the next millenium and be a dominant player! Another choice would be "Apple Millennium OS," but this doesn't generate as strong a feeling of Apple being a dominant player. A good point about both expressions is that they don't limit the OS to one hardware platform. For example, calling the new OS the "Mac OS Millennium" implies that it only runs on Mac hardware. However Rhapsody will run on both Mac and Intel-based PC hardware. What do think of these names? Please send e-mail to: gyoung2@homemail.com to voice your opinion.
Per rumors reported by Mac OS Rumors, MacInTouch, and the NY Times of September 9, 1997, Apple intends to discontinue the Apple branded PC compatiblity cards, Motorola is not planning a direct competitor to Merced (the future Intel CISC/RISC hyrid chip), and Apple is continuing CHRP support in future MAC OS 8 versions. This could be very good news. How so? Well keep in mind the following:
1. Ric Ford of MacInTouch recently became optimistic about Apple's plans after a phone call from Steve Jobs.
2. Apple's PC Compatiblity cards cost between about $700 to $1000 and they don't offer full PC compatiblity. For example, they don't support Windows NT.
3. Insignia Solutions SoftWindows 95 Version 4.0 now costs $199.95 and includes Windows 95 pre-installed. SoftWindows 3.0 now costs $149.98 and includes Microsoft Windows 3.11 and MS-DOS 6.22 pre-installed, plus Novell's NetWare Client 4.0. Connectix Virtual PC comes with your choice of Microsoft Windows 95 or 3.11 pre-installed. It cost $149.98. In addition it supports the full range of PC operating systems, including Windows NT, OS/2, and Apple/NeXT OPENSTEP! Sales of these software emulators are doing well. Insignia solutions also has a software solution for NextStep, which came with some copies of NextStep.
4. It is also rumored that Apple may license the Intel x86 emulation code and the Windows code that is included in various versions of IBM's OS/2.
As a result of this information, I speculate that part of Steve Job's plan is for Apple to ship a high performance and highly compatible software emulator of Pentium hardware on many new Apple branded Mac systems. Future Macs using the latest PowerPC processors will make this practical and when combined with CHRP hardware the Macs may cost the same as todays Macs. The software may even end up being included in Mac OS and/or Rhapsody! This is actually a more practical solution than Macs bundled with expensive PC Compatibility cards that don't even support Windows NT or NextStep.
It looks like Apple may be embracing Wintel compatiblity after all! If such a move truly does happen, remember it is just my speculation, it will be in harmony with the suggestions I made to Apple.
Apple and Umax recently announced that Umax now has a license to ship Mac OS 8 until July 1998. That is good news, however Apple has still not allowed Umax or any other company to ship Mac OS 8 on CHRP hardware.
What is Apple's view on the cloning issue? See what the head of Apple's Developer Relations program, David Krathwohl, has to say to "Dear Developer."
A pro-Apple viewpoint is presented by Christopher Pott in "The Bitter Pill."
Patrick Taylor of Stepwise OpenStep/Rhapsody WWW Information Server has favorable comments of Apple's OS strategy in his editorial "The Clone Wars."
The content in today's posting under the section "How Apple is Hurting the Mac and PowerPC Platform" is a slightly "toned down version" of email that I sent to Apple's board of directors yesterday morning. Most of the other comments in today's and September 4th's postings were also sent to various people making up Apple's current and past leadership. It is interesting to note that Reuters reports that Apple's board met yesterday and will meet during part of today.
Apple's licensees are not the source of Apple's problems, Apple is. The cloners merely make glaringly visible Apple's shortcomings. The sooner Apple grows up and realizes that it is the cause of its problems, the better for Apple.
Apple is working hard to prevent its allies (Motorola, IBM, Umax, and others) from making inexpensive CHRP hardware with performance vastly superior to Apple's hardware and at less price than Apple's hardware. Apple could have chosen to license designs from the cloners, rather than design its own hardware. Or Apple could have simply come up with its own leading edge designs. Instead Apple is trying to hold back progress.
Apple and the former NeXT Computers have shown time and again that they are incapable of producing leading edge hardware at reasonable prices. Most Apple Mac hardware have been more expensive than similar performing hardware from competitors. NeXT first produced expensive hardware and an expensive operating system. Then NeXT focused on just an expensive operating system. Later NeXT focused on expensive development tools. Next wasn't very successful in terms of sales and financial performance. How many compaines ship systems with NeXTStep/OPENSTEP pre-installed today?
The User edition of OPENSTEP on Mach costs more than the Server Edition of Windows NT and far more than the Workstation Edition of Windows NT (according to reviews that I've read). Apple's and NeXT's excessive prices have hurt the sales of those company's products. OPENSTEP seems to be great, except that its hardware support is very weak (according to reviews that I've read) and it is poorly marketed. Early editions demanded that people use the most expensive hardware. Before Apple can solve its problems it must admit that it has problems. Apple is weak at doing that.
Apple must get out of the hardware business, or have cloners design and manufacture systems for Apple, or at least split the hardware division into a separate company that is not later reabsorbed into the parent company. What Apple/NeXT do well at is making software. Apple needs to transition to having licensees produce and market hardware, with Apple writing the software. Then sell the software at reasonable prices, comparable to what successfull compaines charge (such as Microsoft).
Rhapsody sounds like a great operating system, but it may not be enough to save Apple. Sun Microsystems' Solaris operating system is a high powered UNIX system, but Windows NT is beginning to overtake it in sales. There is an Intel version of Solaris, but it isn't selling well.
Whenever Motorola releases fast microprocessors, Intel is not far behind.
Besides faster machines, lower hardware prices, cross-platform high-performance operating systems (that are not dramatically better than Windows NT or Solaris), high reliability, and operating system licensing, Apple needs to do something else. This is because Apple's products are not compatible with the industry standard, without a price or performance penalty (via software emulation or PC-compatibility cards).
Whether it be CPM/DR-DOS vs. MS-DOS, OS/2 vs. Windows 95, Betamax vs. VHS, IBM's PS/2 microchannel vs. ISA, CBS's original color TV systems vs. compatibility with the RCA black and white systems, consumers won't use a non-standard or new platform unless it is fully compatible (without additional cost) with the standard or unless it is obviously vastly superior to the current standard. By obvious, I mean that the consumers can see or hear the benefits in under 30 seconds. Most consumers don't want to educate themselves about technical matters. They want to fit in with everybody else. They want to own what is popular or will be popular.
Compact Discs were able to supplant cassette tapes, because the performance difference was obvious. Also most compact disk stereos also include cassette tape drives. Likewise, early cassette tape stereo systems also included record player turntables. Some of the early compact disk stereos included both cassette tape drives and turntables. The accommodation of prior technologies, eased the transition.
In contrast, few of Apple's Macs come with PC-compatibility hardware or software. The ones that do, cost substantially more. Also, the complexity of computer operating systems mean that consumers must spend more time learning the system, opposed to a person who learns how to use a VHS system or a compact disk system. The Macintosh could have become the industry standard had Apple begun licensing, low product pricing, and full PC- compatibility from the very beginning.
Apple needs to simply and affordably accommodate the industry standard, in addition to the other things it has begun to do, if it is gain market share and prosper. Because computers have both high learning curves and high cost, it will be difficult for Apple to do this while promoting its standard.
A low cost PC-compatibility card, Virtual-PC, OPENSTEP for Windows 95/NT, Java, and Rhapsody for Intel will help, but they may not be enough to attract many new buyers.
Ideally Apple should exit the Mac hardware business and focus on software licensing. However if Apple decides to remain in the hardware business, it may need to create a wholly owned subsidiary that sells Wintel 98 style computers, but with a twist. Use Cyrix/IBM 6x86MX, Cyrix MediaGX, or AMD processors instead of actual Intel processors. Include OPENSTEP, QuickTime, QuickTime VR, QuickDraw 3D, and Hot Sauce MetaFile Content for Windows 98. Include a software extension that gives the option of transforming the Windows 98 look and feel into a Mac OS, Rhapsody OS, or even an OS/2 Warp look and feel. In addition, the computer should come equipped with Rhapsody for Intel. (Or Apple could use the PowerPC 750 chip and Virtual PC (or IBM's own unreleased Intel x86 emulator that is a part OS/2 for PowerPC ) instead of Intel-based chips, and include Rhapsody for PowerPC).
Include PowerPC and Intel versions of Rhapsody in the same box in retail stores (I've noticed that retail versions of Windows NT are packaged that way). Don't sell OPENSTEP for Mac OS and Windows 95/NT as a separate product, except in the developer versions. Retail consumer oriented versions of OPENSTEP are unneeded, because the OPENSTEP API library will be included free with application software (just like QuickTime is free with QuickTime games). It may also be a good idea to bundle "System Commander" with Rhapsody for Intel in the retail versions. That way, it will be easy for Wintel users to painlessly install Rhapsody as part of a dual boot system.
This way the customer only has to decide whether or not he wants Rhapsody. Apple avoids repeating the confusion IBM made with its various OS/2 Warp retail offerings. Suppose he currently uses Intel hardware and decides to buy Rhapsody. If he later buys a PowerPC system, he can transfer both of his applications and Rhapsody operating system to the new machine. He can be confident that his investment in Rhapsody was a sensible one.
This way Apple can: fully support the industry standard while adding Apple's own technologies to create a new standard; accommodate the consumer; avoid confusion with Apple's Power Macintosh line (since the new computers are made by a subsidiary); and maintain Apple's esteem, since the new computers will run OPENSTEP, have a Macintosh or Rhapsody look if desired, have Rhapsody installed as part of a dual boot configuration, and use low cost non-Intel processors.
Currently the Mac platform is one the most closed systems, but the marketplace strongly prefers open systems. Both the hardware and Apple's software need to be the most open. Apple also needs to create a new open hardware/software combination.
CHRP is much more open than current Mac hardware, but it could be more open. Also Apple is currently keeping CHRP from coming to market.
CHRP would be more open if it included a chip that uses a hybrid PowerPC/Intel x86 compatible processor, such as what the Exponential patents would have enabled. Such a system would be more OPEN than Wintel (at least until Intel's Merced chip [a x86 CISC/RISC hybrid] is available). Until such a PowerPC/x86 hybrid chip is available, CHRP system makers should include an excellent Intel x86 emulator with all CHRP systems.
If Apple exited the Mac hardware market, then Apple could aggressively market Rhapsody for PowerPC, Rhapsody for Intel, and Mac OS for PowerPC (including CHRP systems). Rhapsody could include the ability to run Windows applications, if Apple decided to license IBM's Intel x86 emulator and Windows code (which exists in versions of OS/2).
If Apple contines in the hardware business it should create a wholly owned subsidiary that sells Wintel 98 style computers, but with a twist. Use Cyrix/IBM 6x86MX, Cyrix MediaGX, or AMD processors instead of actual Intel processors. Include OPENSTEP, QuickTime, QuickTime VR, QuickDraw 3D, and Hot Sauce MetaFile Content for Windows 98. Include a software extension that gives the option of transforming the Windows 98 look and feel into a Mac OS, Rhapsody OS, or even an OS/2 Warp look and feel. In addition, the computer should come equipped with Rhapsody for Intel. (Or Apple could use the PowerPC 750 chip and Virtual PC (or IBM's own unreleased Intel x86 emulator that is a part OS/2 for PowerPC ) instead of Intel-based chips, and include Rhapsody for PowerPC).
Apple Computer's recent 10-Q filing (for the period ending June 27, 1997) with the SEC says (in Note 7 on page 7) that Microsoft's investment is in the form of non-voting Preferred stock. However, this stock is convertible into common stock in August 2000. Common stock has voting rights, hence Microsoft apparently will have the option of obtaining voting rights in August 2000. Currently Apple's management team collectively owns less than 5% of Apple's outstanding common shares (per press releases and the most recent 10-Q filing). It's now probably less than 1%. As a result, by the year 2000 Microsoft might have considerable influence on Apple.
I feel that Apple needs to promote a truely COMMON hardware platform (including a chip that uses a hybrid PowerPC/Intel x86 compatible processor, such as what the Exponential patents would have enabled ) that is more OPEN than Wintel. These days the marketplace strongly prefers the most open systems. Apple should ship systems that come with both Mac OS 8 and Windows 98 on such systems. Until such a hybrid chip is available, Apple should ship Virtual PC with Windows 98 along with Mac OS 8 on all systems sold in retail stores.
I fear that if Apple does grant Mac OS 8 licenses, they will only be granted for CHRP systems if those systems are aimed at the under $1000 market, or a few markets where Apple has done poorly.
If Apple insists on charging IBM and Motorola several hundred dollars more for future Mac OS licenses, it seems reasonable for IBM and Motorola to charge Apple more. Until Apple behaves reasonably, IBM and Motorola should raise the price by several hundred dollars (and/or scale back their supply of PowerPC chip sales to Apple).
An excellent Mac system would be a Motorla CHRP sytem that uses the PowerPC 750/Arthur processor. Motorola's CHRP systems are more powerfull and they support more hardware options than available Apple systems.
I am very concerned about the survival of the CHRP/Mac OS platform. The above mentioned reconmendations should help the platform, although they may hurt Apple in the short-run. Ultimately, what's best for the platform is also likely best for Apple.
Fri, 5 Sep 1997 20:28:26
On your webpage dedicated to Apple news and analysis, you state:
>>>>
I feel that the cloners (especially IBM and Motorola since they are co-creators of the PowerPC and the CHRP specification and because they have promoted their own CHRP motherboard designs) can probably legally sell CHRP systems, as long as they use a non-Apple operating system. For example, they could use the BeOS with a Mac OS emulator. I feel it would be in their best interests (and consumers as well) if they did so. It would let them ship CHRP systems where their customers could install the Mac OS, if they chose.
<<<<
While I think this is a very good idea, I feel obligated to point out a paragraph in the Apple Computer, Inc. Macintosh System Software License Agreement. I refer to Paragraph 2:
>>>>
This License allows you to install and use the Apple Software on a single Apple-labeled or Apple-licensed computer at a time. (...) This license allows you to install or operate the Apple Software only on a computer system that had a version of Mac OS installed on it at the time you acquired such computer system.
<<<<
Thus, I don't think you can legally recommend the above course of action...The theoretical customers you speak of cannot, legally, install the Mac OS on the CHRP systems...
Do you have news, rumors, or general comments that you would like to send to the author? If so, then send e-mail to: gyoung2@homemail.com. Return to Home Page