John C. Dvorak’s recent column in PC Magazine speculating that Apple may soon abandon OSX for Windows created a small firestorm of controversy. (You can also hear him explain the theory on TWiT 42 (“Dvorak’s Lost It”) – the sound in the background is Leo Laporte beating Dvorak with a sneaker.)
So is Dvorak crazy? Or as Mathew Ingram suggests, is he on drugs? Both, perhaps – he’s always been crazy, as far as I’m concerned – crazy, provocative and controversial, now more than ever, and that’s why I’ve been faithfully reading him for — is it really about 20 years?? Only Dvorak would have the nerve to float this one, and he must have swallowed hard when he did. So, while I think he’s wrong and very possibly pharmaceutically over-medicated, I think it’s also worth spending a few minutes laying out exactly why.
So, herewith Dvorak’s reasons for thinking the theory may have legs (the reasons come from his column, and from TWiT 42), and why I think it’s farcockteh:
1. This is Dvorak’s #1 reason: Adobe hasn’t ported its apps to Universal Binaries. As a result, they have to run under Rosetta for now, with the result, as Steve Jobs explained at MacWorld, “While the performance is not going to be strong enough for professionals who spend hours a day in Photoshop, it’s going to be enough for the rest of us, even under Rosetta.” Dvorak’s theory is that Adobe is holding back because they have inside knowledge that Apple is going to abandon OSX, and a native version would be a wasted effort.
This just doesn’t hold water. The creative class has, of course, long favoured the Mac, and Adobe’s software is the preferred platform. It’s also fair to say that if Adobe apps aren’t quickly produced in native Intel versions for the Mac, the creative class is going to take its time making the switch. Which, naturally, gives Adobe a lot of leverage in any negotiations with Apple. So, knowing that Apple was desperate to make the switch and not get left behind in the Intel-AMD chip wars, why would Adobe merely play along? Wouldn’t it be smarter to play hard to get and extract some concessions from a desperate Apple? To my mind, this is nothing more than Adobe wisely playing a strong hand. It’s not personal – just business.
2. The switch to Intel. Dvorak also suggests that the switch to Intel is just a necessary step to the switch to Windows.
The early reports are of a 4x speed improvement from the Powerbook G4 to the Core Duo version. 4x, with the same heat and the same battery life. This one’s not complicated: Apple made the switch because the PowerPC was falling behind Intel falling behind AMD.
3. The Apple Switch campaign isn’t working – no one’s switching. Dvorak suggests that Apple needs to do more than OSX to maintain its customer base; customers aren’t coming over, he says.
I read posts by gleeful switchers every week. And I follow them carefully, because I’m considering the switch myself. Surprisingly often the switchers are long-term, hard-core Windows users. And everywhere I look I see Mac laptops – more and more of them, it seems, every day (though sometimes you have to squint to see past the forests of other Apple schwag in the way). As Mathew points out, it just ain’t so. But perhaps more importantly, now that the Mac OS has been opened up it will become much more appealing and powerful as time passes. Switching should accelerate. (Admittedly, based purely on anecdotal evidence) I think it already is.
4. The iPod was designed to get people to move to the Mac, but this hasn’t happened. Dvorak suggests that the iPod has failed as switch-bait.
See #3. People are switching. And the iPod has helped to make Apple even more wildly creative, inspired and cool than it was before. And what’s good for Apple is good for OSX.
5. The iPod lost its firewire connector. Dvorak suggests that Apple dropped the firewire connector from the iPod because the Windows crowd – a USB bunch – is the new target market.
Well, if you want to sell a lot of iPods, you sell them to the Windows crowd, too. There are more customers there. But more to the point, the standards battle is over and firewire has lost – at least for the iPod’s purposes. With no firewire 800 on the MacBook Pro, but two USB ports, it’s clear what Apple is thinking about whether it makes sense to have two standards. Apple is simply deciding not to fight the VHS-Beta battle all over again – we all know how that ended.
6. Apple’s assault on the gossip sites. Dvorak theorizes that Apple went after ThinkSecret because it was worried the gossip sites would find out about the Windows switch.
Wasn’t the ThinkSecret suit launched before Apple announced the Intel switch? Perhaps the lawsuit was aimed at preventing that disclosure. But in any event, Apple’s mystique is built on marketing, and its marketing is built on controlling perception. It’s much more likely that Apple went after Think Secret because it was interfering with Apple’s ability to control spin.
7. Microsoft’s announcement that it would support Office for the Mac for 5 years. Dvorak refers to Microsoft’s announcement at MacWorld and wonders, why 5? What happens after that? He theorizes that Microsoft won’t agree to more than 5 because it knows Apple is planning to dump OSX.
No, Microsoft won’t announce more than 5 years of support because while it knows how much its support is worth to Apple now, it’s worth waiting for a few years to see how much more its support will be worth to Apple then. Avoiding a long-term commitment when you’re in the driver’s seat – and when you don’t know what the future will bring – is just good business. Apple’s vulnerability to Adobe and Microsoft for critical applications is probably the company’s single biggest strategic vulnerability (other than the risk of Steve Jobs getting hit by a bus) – and Adobe and Microsoft know it.
8. Finally, Apple is a hardware company, not a software company. Dvorak thinks that with the iPod being a cash cow, Apple now has the nerve to be a hardware company.
Apple would be dead as a hardware company. Apple sells dreams, not computers – the dream to be different, to be unique, to be cool. The way Macs work – all Apple OS’s for that matter – is woven as deeply into the company’s DNA as any other virtue. As Mathew says, it’s “the last thing that makes the company unique”. Without that differentness, Apple would soon be just another slick box designer. Apple needs its OS to dream.
……………
So, as I often say when I’m hedging my bets, Dvorak may be right, but if he is it’s not for any of these reasons. They just don’t add up.
Note: the ‘toon is from Nitrozac and Snaggy’s work here.
{ 65 comments… read them below or add one }
← Previous Comments
These are the same people that said that apple would never switch to intel (which Dvorac predicted). All he said was that it could be a possability, not that he was sure it would happen. We are all entitled to our opinion. I just wish there was this much opposition to going into Iraq.
Don’t get your panties in a bunch ladies, no matter what apple does you will still buy what Jobs is selling. And it is good stuff…
There are weapons of mass distruction in Iraq and Apple will never go to windows…sometimes no matter how sure you are about something you just never know.
Iraq continued….
by the way i’m a different gabe than the post above and i just bought a used g4 cube on ebay…
Continuing in the stream of Gabes…
> These are the same people that said that apple would never switch to intel (which Dvorac predicted).
No, we’re not. To believe that mean would mean that you had to believe that Apple’s value was somehow in the PowerPC chip and that there was nothing to gain from switching to an x86 architecture, which is silly considering how Intel was eating IBM’s lunch on the low-power front. Dvorak just makes ridiculous claims, and if there happens to be some credible reasoning behind them, so much the better, but he doesn’t go out of his way to find it. Claiming Apple will switch to Windows is just a way for him to up the ante.
Unlike the PowerPC chip, OS X has a lot of value. For one thing it’s not bogged down with legacy considerations like Windows. It does not suffer from widespread viruses and spyware that almost inevitably degrade the performance of the system over time. Their development cycle runs circles around Microsoft. And they have the world of UNIX software at their fingertips.
Now tell me, how would selling an overpriced Windows machine that runs iLife be a competitive advantage for Apple?
Great points . . . good job standing up for Apple. I’d assume it’d take a person who’s NOT an avid Apple user like Dvorak to make assumptions like this because the best part of being an Apple owner is the superior OS and programs.
We’ll be discussing this topic and your post on our upcoming Mac Roundtable Podcast at http://www.macroundtable.com
Keep up the good writing!
“People” might be switching, but “businesses” aren’t. You see a lot of mac laptops? You must be frequenting campuses.
Anyone who’s anyone uses a windows standard for their business networks/laptops/desktops. And I’m sure you’ll see a post or two refuting this point, but for every post you DO see, just think about the market penetration that Windows has. For every, “My work supports Macs!” post there are 9 other people reading my post and saying, “Yea, good point, we don’t support macs either.”
“Apple sells dreams, not computers – the dream to be different, to be unique, to be cool.”
Idiots would buy a computer based on this premise.
I really don’t know if the switch is true or not. Apple’s real goal is to be successful. If they’ve convinced idiots that Macs are “cool” or “dreams” or whatever and that’s why they should buy them, well it’s pretty easy to understand how “I want to be different. Now everyone go buy a Mac!”. That’s like putting a kid on Ritolin then telling them that drugs are bad!
If that’s what Macs are about, then you Macphans should be telling others NOT to buy Macs. After all, through growth they will become NON-unique, and UNcool.
At any rate, what idiots fail to understand is that Apple is a company, and they are there to make money. They will try to do whatever it takes to make the most money, and if they want to switch to Windows they will if it would be more profitable. Apple is just like every other business idiots, which definately makes them UNcool.
Apple should take the reins off OS X and release it to the world now that it’s X86 compatible.
OS X 86 is a Windows Killer. The start would be slow due to the installed Windows base software and the cost of buying new applications. The basic OS X package offers so much more than any Windows XP version NOW!
I want stability, Microsoft can’t or won’t manfacture it! I would also like the freedom to build my own machines using AMD dual core cpus running OS X.
Sivad
Bottom line: No one would ever spend that extra $500 – $1000 on their machine unless it was to get into that luscious platform. If it was just another wintel machine no one would pay what they’re asking. And frankly, there would be reason other than “ooo pretty” to buy a Mac.
It simply doesn’t make any sense.
I agree re: switching. As laptops commoditize, people will add weight to design as one of the purchase criteria. Like a car, it will become more than a way to get something done, people will purchase the aesthetic. Like the Mac Plus of yore, powerbooks evoke an emotional response in contrast to their ugly PC cousins. Now that Google Earth is offered for OSX, I have no regrets.
Only Jobs would know the truth to this. Why do someone or a reporter follow up with Jobs to get clarity to the mist?
Sorry, guys, but I think Dvorak may be right. Very few people switched. For every one who did, there were others who switched the other way. Apple’s a publicly-held company, and if its market share was growing they’d be bragging about it.
Apple will not switch to windows, but is surely going to create Macs with the ability to use either operating system. So those people who think Apples are cool and really wish they had the time to learn how to use OSX, but a fearful of a switch, can have the confidence to make the leap. They will not lose anything…just gain a new better OS.
It seems someone just got owned….and it wasn’t Dvorak.
here are some facts:
1 – dvorak is an egocentric idiot
2 – dvorak is retard
3 – who cares about dvorak’s opinion?
Is this the same John Dvorak who predicted (in Macworld no less..or some other Mac only publication he used to write a column for), that Apple will be out of business by the year 2000 or thereabouts?
← Previous Comments
{ 14 trackbacks }