http://www.ionicstudios.net/MacTel/

You’re basing your argument that Apple is ignoring the desktop on two false premises.

The first false premise is that Apple’s recent innovations outside the desktop are a sign that they have no attention to spare for the desktop. I know more than a little about Apple’s current plans for Mac OS X. Watch the WWDC webcast in three weeks for details on the upcoming Mac OS X 10.4 and then tell me if OS innovation is dead at Apple.

Second is the premise that Linux developers are racing toward the same goal line as Apple and Microsoft, and merely need some breathing space to catch up. In fact, all three groups are moving along quite different vectors within the multidimensional ‘OS space’.

If Apple were ever to start ignoring innovation, it would not be a boon for Linux. Microsoft, despite its greed and stultifying focus on the corporate market, does occasionally allow its product managers to consider making their products easier to use. That small advantage would allow Microsoft to overlap the ‘usable desktop’ space, while the bulk of the company’s efforts remained focused on capturing corporate revenue streams.

Linux is a great OS with no regard whatsoever for usability. Neither Linux app nor Linux OS developers have shown any aptitude for building truly usable software. Configurable, yes — usable (in the sense of being ready to use right out of the box, requiring little or no configuration from the user) – no.

For Linux to win the desktop OS contest, it’s going to have to at least *approach* the dim and shaky concept of ‘ease of use’ seen in Windows XP. (Preferably, it would instead realign itself along Apple’s line and start making software that ‘just works’, without requiring a trip to the commmand line whenever heavy lifting is desired.)

That’s not going to happen until the Linux community starts attracting UI design engineers — a quite different breed from the (admittedly brilliant) programmers who now make up the core of the Linux movement.

Linux wins based on number of seats – Apple measures success primarily in profitability. Both can win by their own metrics and barely step on each other’s toes.

The lack of new hardware is due to IBM’s G5 mfg difficulties, and G5 heat issues in a Powerbook- or iMac-size box. (Hey, IBM just got around to releasing a “dictionary” sized desktop and news reports make it sound like a big thing, but the LCD iMac base is smaller; only thing is IBM allows one PCI slot.) Apple just added a liquid cooling system for the top-end; I’m sure it was designed for a 3MHz chip as well but IBM couldn’t deliver. Read the 3 pdf reports on G5 on Apple’s site.

You say desktops are becoming commodities; that’s true except for the user interested in creating and enjoying digital media. Apple is turning its Mac into focused user-solutions, mostly by applications (and not really features but ease-of-use – the whole experience) and add-on gadgets. Those gadgets also work with PCs – trojan horse. Apple is moving music from the computer to other places where people listen: personal (iPod), car (coming soon), and home (stereo and wireless) spaces; what follows after is moving slideshows, movies, etc from the computer to places where people watch.

But Apple is adding new things in the OS space as well. Things like Expose, Rendezvous, Safari (WebCore), iChat AV, Pixlet, Lossless Audio Compression. Coming things we already know about: Full 64-bit OS X; Spoken Interface Preview (leading to a new kind of interface?); Xgrid. There’s lots more rumored, but let’s see what happens at WWDC in 18 days.

So depending on who you believed in the last rounds of performance comparisons, Apple is ether pulling further ahead, just pulling past or catching up even more to the Wintel world. There is no way to spin that as a negative (for the high end)

On the other hand, I was disapointed when the initial G5’s shipped starting at $1799 as it pushed the G5’s out of reach of any except the professional market. I was hoping that a year of efficiency would allow not only a speed bump but also a price reduction down to the old $1599 tower price (for the dual 1.8) and the replacement of the $1299 G4 tower with a single 1.8 G5.

Instead the entry level was pushed up yet again to $2000 and the Mid-range computer user has been totally abandoned by Apple for now. These are the enthusiasts who know how much faster a G5 is but don’t have corporate financial backing for purchases. We are looking for a powerful system with at least basic expansion expansion (able to upgrade the video card) in the $1000-$1500 range.

So if there is a new mini tower in the works or a G5 iMac/eMac that will be introduced very soon, I’ll get off my soap box but right now, a year after the initial G5 introduction the best system from Apple in my price range uses a single 1.25Ghz G4’s. This is not compelling me to pull out my wallet.

Scrivs, I think it’ll continually be a case of what it almost always ends up being with big open source projects… fragmentation. Too many cooks (or should that be “geeks”?) and all that. And Apple isn’t turning away from the desktop. That’s silly. It’s not a zero sum game. They’re putting more attention to the peripherals that are required to make the desktop deseve the media hub (or whatever SJ’s phrase was for it, the kool-aid has worn off and I’ve forgotten) title. But where are you getting the idea that apple is going to abandon innovation? Because they released a liquid cooled dual 2.5 instead of an air cooled single 3? Seems pretty obvious they’re having heat issues and wanted to get the liquid cooling down solid before doing a 3 where it’s probably a more vital part of the solution.

And all OSX on intel would do is ruin apple, both their profits and their reputation. Their profits are on the machines, not the software. Remember when they let other companies build cheap macs and it nearly killed the company? And more importantly, running on a more open platform means they have to support an incredible array of peripherals, cards, motherboards, etc… and expecting them to write drivers for the mac… when many of them barely even manage working drivers for windows.

I think the only way we’ll see a workable OSX on x86 is if MS or Apple come up with the reverse of Virtual PC for Mac. Then OSX could presumably rely on standard windows hooks into things and not need its own drivers.

DarkBlue, I am not concerned if they wish to be insanely great on the desktop or not. They obviously are not going to go for marketshare anytime soon and are content sticking with their current profits and attacking the Digital Media space. Releasing OSX on Windows would do nothing pretty much. Sure the hardcore of us would switch, but there is still no reason for Windows users to switch. You wanna see the Micrsoft world tumble? Open Source all of OSX (yes I know it runs off a OS kernel). Then you should see some sparks flying.

Linux (and the other *nixs) are great server OSs, but not that appealing to Joe Bloggs for the desktop.

If Apple wants to be “insanely great”, they should release that OS X for Intel that’s been sitting in their labs for God-knows how long.

Just imagine what that would do to the market!

Just imagine the impact that would have in Redmond!

Just imagine…

Don’t get me wrong – what Linux does it does very well. It just can’t compete with the amount of usability engineering that goes into a commercial OS like Mac OS. Yes, there is Gnome’s HIG, but that’s just one part of the Linux system (if you use Gnome). Linux – jack of all trades, master of none? Discuss…just don’t flame me ;)