The Back Page - John C. Dvorak: Apple Plans Move to Windows
by
- February 16th, 2006
John C. Dvorak, the master cage-rattler, is at again, and this time his whip-up-the-Mac-masses angle is that Apple is going to dump Mac OS X, and move to Windows. This is one of his clumsier arguments, but it bears mentioning (and debunking) mainly because there are some folks worried about this very issue. Accordingly, let's shred Mr. Dvorak's arguments.
Mr. Dvorak attributed four basic ideas as presented to him by Yakov Epstein, professor of psychology at Rutgers University, as evidence that Apple was working on such a move. They are (and I quote):
The first was that the Apple Switch ad campaign was over, and nobody switched.
The second was that the iPod lost its FireWire connector because the PC world was the new target audience.
Also, although the iPod was designed to get people to move to the Mac, this didn't happen.
And, of course, that Apple had switched to the Intel microprocessor.
Rubbish, all.
The Switch campaign was one of the reasons Apple's Mac sales didn't fall even further at a time when the G4 processor was seriously hurting the platform. This is an oft misunderstood issue, but the fact is that the Switch campaign was a great success, and one of the primary ways that Apple pulled people into its then-growing fleet of retail stores.
The new iPods lost their FireWire connector because of cost and space, at least that's what my sources tell me, and all I can tell you about them is that I trust them. Even if that weren't the case, however, what the heck does that have to do with Apple moving to Windows? USB and FireWire is an issue that concerns Intel, not Microsoft.
The iPod has been a great attractor for Windows users to move to the Mac, and is one of the reasons Apple's market share has grown so fast in the last 18 months.
The move to Intel would indeed allow Apple to also move to Windows, but this is the stupidest reason of the four. If Apple wanted to save money by allowing Microsoft "to do the grunt work" of supplying an OS, an argument Mr. Dvorak also made, why would it invest the enormous resources necessary to move Mac OS X itself to Intel? It's extra development work, work that was done for five years according to Steve Jobs, and the company has to maintain two platforms -- PPC and x86 -- for a while yet. If Apple was going to move to Intel in order to move to Windows, I have little doubt that it would have done both at the same time.
So much for a psych professor's take on the situation, but the interesting thing is that it is psychology, more than any other factor, that negates the idea that Apple would move to Windows. That issue is that Steve Jobs thinks controlling the whole widget is Apple's competitive edge. More importantly, I firmly believe that from his perspective the only OS good enough for his own computing is the one that he's in charge of.
Macs running Windows are running an inelegant OS that Apple can not control. That is entirely antithetical to everything Steve Jobs has talked about for the last 30 years.
Of course, Mr. Jobs has reversed himself before whenever it was necessary for Apple's marketing message (PPC is better than x86. "It's about the music, stupid."), but this is a fundamental issue that goes far deeper than any marketing issue. Steve Jobs has always felt that to make a good computer, you have to control the OS and the hardware. That trumps every other argument.
Professor Epstein probably doesn't understand that, and it's impossible to know what Mr. Dvorak really believes, but this statement from his column is telling:
"From the Mac to the iPod, it's the GUI that makes Apple software distinctive. Apple popularized the modern GUI. Why not specialize in it and leave the grunt work to Microsoft?"
This is so close to the truth, it's easy to read past it and say, "Yeah, that makes sense." It's not quite right, though. Apple's GUI is superior to anyone else's, but what makes the iPod and the Mac so great is that they just work.
Why do they just work? Because Apple controls the software and the hardware.
Rinse. Repeat.
In short, as long as Steve Jobs is CEO of Apple, the company will not move to Windows.
Astute readers will note that I said many times in the past that Apple would never switch to Intel. We all know how that worked out, of course, so why should you trust my analysis of this subject?
In my own defense, I also always said that if Apple did move to Intel, the Mac would remain a proprietary platform, and that Mac OS X for x86 wouldn't run on beige boxes. The reason I have always given for that is that Apple wanted to control the whole widget.
Rinse. Repeat.
I'll close with a congrats to Mr. Dvorak for finding yet another topic with which to push the Mac community's collective button, but there's nothing here to merit anything more than a quick dismissal.
began using Apple computers in 1983 in a high school BASIC programming class. He started using Macs in 1990 when the Kinko's guy taught him how to use Aldus PageMaker, finally buying a Power Computing Power 100 in 1995. Today, Bryan is the Editor of The Mac Observer, and has contributed to the print versions of MacAddict and MacFormat (UK).
John C. Dvorak wrote: Now with the cash cow iPod line, it can afford to drop expensive OS development and just make jazzy, high-margin Windows computers to finally get beyond that five-percent market share and compete directly with Dell, HP, and the stodgy Chinese makers.
Uh, hey John... Care to explain WHY people would pay more for an Apple once it's the same as any Dell?
The pretty case? I hate to tell him this but that's not actually the reason Mac users buy Macs. He clearly assumes that's all that attracts us. No wonder he thinks we're morons.
CloseViewName:macinnerdPosts: 1610Joined: 15 Jun 2005 Thu Feb 16, 2006 5:14 pmSubject:
Quote
John C. Dvorak wrote: By maintaining its own OS, Apple would have to suffer endless complaints about peripherals that don't work
Do we need to remind you that Apple took special care of that issue?
I have a lot of peripherals that I can plug into my Mac, and bingo, it works, whereas with Windows I always have to install some driver of sorts, and sometime end up completely lost without it.
Last edited by macinnerd on Fri Feb 17, 2006 7:42 am; edited 1 time in total Reply | Quote
Dvorak ignored the biggest possibility: the possibility that Apple will revive Yellow Box. He could have at least done enough research to add that to his idiotic argument.
If Apple really wanted to sell Windows boxes, they could sell dual-boot boxes, so that people could still reap the benefit of a kick-ass, solid (and *still* virus free) OS, but only switch to Windows when they need compatibility.
The next article you read about Dvorak will detail how the DEA found tons of mind altering drugs in his office. The case will be challenged in court, but the DEA will cite this article as their “probable cause.” The court will uphold it.
This man has nothing better to do then chat the doom of Macintosh since day one. And to say that "John C. Dvorak By maintaining its own OS, Apple would have to suffer endless complaints about peripherals that don't work" Hmmm very interesting I plugged a Dell monitor into a Dell PC and it wouldn't work. Plugged it into my Mac Mini. Guess what? Its working.
Dvorak is the O'Reilly of the PC news. He has never had anything new to offer so he just makes it all up, real strong and loud, so he gets hits and audience.
Notice how Bill O'Reilly backs up EVERYTHING he says. I'm serious, check it out. David Letterman wasn't able to keep up with him so he said something like "I'm not smart enough to debate you..." when he was on Letterman's show.
Check out Bill Maher, his opinions are mostly based on emotions. We have to remember that emotions are instable so please Maher/Dvorak....stick with the FACTS!
Dvorak actually remembers a lot of things (some more accurately than others)and, on occasion, seems to be able to think and write coherently on some topics.
However, he also produces a ton of worthless garbage, some choice bits of it related to the doom of Apple and the Macintosh - e.g. "Isn't it about time the Macintosh was simply discontinued - put down like an old dog?," etc..
Perhaps he is trying to be provocative or outlandish, to get people to read his column or just pay attention to him, but it is tiresome.
CloseViewName:MaccersPosts: 304Joined: 29 Aug 2001 Thu Feb 16, 2006 7:30 pmSubject:
What a load of croc. Were Apple to go to Windows there's no way I'd buy their kit. I'd go for the cheapest I could get elsewhere and I doubt I'm alone in thinking that way.
I guess some of the usual suspects are buoyed up by the fact that Apple went for Intel processors and then they assume that it followws that Apple will go to Windows too.....
Ummm, Yellow Box became Cocoa, Blue Box became Carbon and the Red Box was the rumored Windows compatibility layer . . . I remember this from the seminar they hosted while I was working for a computer repair firm.
But yes, the idea of Red Box would be a nice addition. I just don't know what hoops they would have to jump through to get it done legally and what if any implications it would have for the potential security issues from introducing Windows compatible code into OS X. As it is, Virtual PC, much as I love to curse its performance issues before and its owner now, offers a safer solution because if the system becomes infected, then you simply just build a new hard drive for it and go on with life. Or if you're really smart, after you get everything installed and before you do anything online with it, you'll make a backup of the drive image and just restore it if it becomes infected.
CloseViewName:Intruder- TMO Mac SpecialistPosts: 2833Joined: 07 Jul 2004 Thu Feb 16, 2006 8:08 pmSubject:
Wouldn't "red box" be essentially similar to either VMWare (if you need the OS) or darWINE (if it is just mimicing the APIs)? In either case, I'm not sure that there could be any legal issues. Plus, MS shouldn't care if it is a VMWare-type solution, as they still sell a copy of Windows.
Reverse engineering the APIs is legal as long as no MS proprietary code is used.
John C. Dvorak is a blowhard who professes to know more than he does. Tiger is something that MS will never catch up because, in order to do that, they have to move to UNIX and dump the 40,000 apps that run on the OS. Only a clean redo of the kernal will do whereby you get rid of the gateways to the kernel that UNIX does not have. Enugg said.
CloseViewName:Guest Thu Feb 16, 2006 10:06 pmSubject:
He mentioned this on the last TWIT and said he too didn't believe it at first until he thought about more. I was curious and a small bit puzzled at what could convince him to think Apple would dump OS X. Wow, I thought there was going to be something explosive to this, but those are four of the lamest reasons ever.
Here may (I emphasize *may*) lie the key to Dvorak's fantasy. I could see Apple abandoning the Mac OS, and therefore the Mac, altogether for the iPod, music and video devices and peripherals. That might make sense. But I don't expect it.
the more I think about it, I like the idea of releasing the Mac with a final fond kiss, not to Windows, but in favor of the new age of digital lifestyle, i.e. the iPod.
That way, Steve could eventually retire himself from Apple having revolutionized the industry twice, first the Macintosh, then the iPod. Who else would, or could, do such a thing, but the Great Steve-O.
There’s a quote from George Orwell which sums up this insane idea: “You have to be an intellectual to believe such nonsense; no ordinary man could be such a fool.”
Quote
Intruder wrote: Wouldn't "red box" be essentially similar to either VMWare (if you need the OS) or darWINE (if it is just mimicing the APIs)? In either case, I'm not sure that there could be any legal issues. Plus, MS shouldn't care if it is a VMWare-type solution, as they still sell a copy of Windows.
Reverse engineering the APIs is legal as long as no MS proprietary code is used.
Bryan Chaffin wrote: Mr. Dvorak attributed four basic ideas as presented to him by Yakov Epstein, professor of psychology at Rutgers University, as evidence that Apple was working on such a move.
Dvorak reminds me of Madonna back in the day (or Britney now)... simply DESPERATE for controversy and attention, and willing to do anything, no matter how idiotic, to get it.
What's next, Johnny D dressin' up in heels and fishnets? Ooh baby. All that and the piss-poor analysis and baseless FUD too.
Guest wrote: Notice how Bill O'Reilly backs up EVERYTHING he says. I'm serious, check it out. David Letterman wasn't able to keep up with him so he said something like "I'm not smart enough to debate you..." when he was on Letterman's show.
Check out Bill Maher, his opinions are mostly based on emotions. We have to remember that emotions are instable so please Maher/Dvorak....stick with the FACTS!
The facts are... O'Reilly is an idiot.
And Letterman was right to humiliate him by saying to his face, "Sixty percent of what comes out of your mouth is crap." In fact, Dave was being rather kind on the percentage.
Quote
Guest wrote: Notice how Bill O'Reilly backs up EVERYTHING he says. I'm serious, check it out. David Letterman wasn't able to keep up with him so he said something like "I'm not smart enough to debate you..." when he was on Letterman's show.
Check out Bill Maher, his opinions are mostly based on emotions. We have to remember that emotions are instable so please Maher/Dvorak....stick with the FACTS!
this guy seems to have written this from his own perspective, without actually trying to understand those he is writing about (Mac users).
"once-isolated Apple mavens" indeed. I don't think I have ever felt isolated...more likely, since I stopped having to listen to them, I've always felt content to be blissfully free of the incoherant intrusions of crowds of Windows users and pundits.
Luckily, this guy adds comedy so I don't mind the occasional intrusion into my world from him.
Actually, the lead in the wrapping around the top of all the wine bottles that John has drunk has finally affected his brain. Reminder to all, he is a wine junkie and has written on that too.
It's sad that he had to base his whole argument upon someone else's understanding of the hardware/software industry, when understanding that stuff is supposed to be Dvorak's area of knowledge. That should tell you something.
Wow...all those poor top-shelf software companies pouring all of that effort into making Universal Apps that run on both PC and Intel Macs...they're just wasting their time! Quick! Someone tell them before they flush any more development dollars down the drain!
balanced. Just watch his show. He generally does have a solid platform/soapbox. While that maher freak is a ranting performer...that's why he's on HBO.
Oh, that dvorak guy...he's not that stupid! nobody could be that stupid, could they? He's just a squirrel trying to get a nut!
I have, and its painful to see what a bag of hot air Bill is. O'Reilly's simply an idiot, and he gets his facts wrong quite a lot. Even makes stuff up.
He should go back to what he's good at, namely being the host of a tabloid TV show.
Guest wrote: It'd be nice if fora (like this one, even ars technica and /.) would just refrain from linking to this guy's articles.
If you think it's worth discussing, discuss, but don't give the guy incentive, don't give him revenue.
I like the groklaw way where articles from disreputable sources are discussed but not linked at. The terminally curious can Google anyway.
8-|
I agree. TMO should not inadvertantly help Dvorak in his mission to grab hits and spread FUD at the same time. Let the crazy old aunt stay in her attic.
CloseViewName:Guest Thu Feb 23, 2006 7:18 amSubject:
"The pretty case? I hate to tell him this but that's not actually the reason Mac users buy Macs. He clearly assumes that's all that attracts us. No wonder he thinks we're morons."
I fully agree. I would happily (well almost as...) run OSX on a DELL as on a Mac. I really hope that OSX will be bundled with other manufacturers as the OS is getting more and more irrelevant in professional IT. What a shame though as it is so much better.
CloseViewName:Intruder- TMO Mac SpecialistPosts: 2833Joined: 07 Jul 2004 Thu Feb 23, 2006 9:22 amSubject:
Quote
Anonymous wrote: ...the OS is getting more and more irrelevant in professional IT.
Tell that to MY IT department. For them it appears that working hardware is irrelevant, as long as it runs Windows. Always seem to get bottom of the barrel hardware from our outsourced IT group. And we're a Fortune 500 company.
Apple's Computer future is dieing. Though Apple's music industry is booming, and they seem to love to copy Windows Media Player when they can, the computer side will die. Sorry, It's the truth, You cannot possibly see more progress being made.
Anyone want to see if they can find a similar article where the Mac community swore holy oaths that Mac's cpu was the bestest in the world and they would never use cr@ppy pc hardware?
Guess the os is really the only thing that separates mac from pc's now... Let's... GFX by ATI.. DDR2 mem.. etc
Oh yeah... And that Apple logo on the back which makes it's appearance in just about every movie and tv series...
Mac users don't fall for marketing at least...
Hang on... Did I just hear the Intel theme tune there?
Have fun being so sure guys. Just like I was that the Amiga would reign supreme for all eternity... Sigh... Happy days...
