Steven den Beste says that the Macintosh (and Apple as a computer company) is ultimately doomed and sooner rather than later.

Which means he's run out of things to talk about for now, but can't let there be any "dead air."He's been saying nothing but bad things about Apple and the Mac for years. Makes one wonder why he has such an unhealthy obsession.

What will be noteworthy is the day he says something nice, which is about as likely as the Cubs winning the World Series.

Den Beste's analysis seems reasonable. Apple never really recovered from its early marketing mistakes: closed architecture; hostility to third-party components, software, and imitators; very high retail prices. The umbrella that created, and the "network effect," about which Den Beste has also written, gave the Intel / Microsoft combination an edge that it never surrendered.

While Apple commanded a niche market, in which they had an offering that was sufficiently superior to justify the cost, isolation and awkwardness of the Apple offering, it could maintain a foothold in the computer business. But its dominance in desktop publishing, graphic arts and video has come to an end. The music field simply doesn't offer them a chance to reacquire the kind of technological superiority that would justify the high price and backwater character of their system.

It's a pity, really. The x86 processor family needs competition, and Windows, for all its many virtues, ought not to go unchallenged either. Where the necessary competitors will come from after Apple's demise, I can't imagine. I doubt it will be Linux.

I think it already is Linux.

The Macintosh probably is a dying platform, and will never regain the market share it's lost. But the process has been slow so far; the increasing speed gap might accelerate it. The funny thing is that people have been saying its demise is imminent, often with good reasoning, for over a decade and it keeps hanging on to life.

I think it's got a few years left even as a rump platform, and the community will outlast the company. I thought Apple was dying when I bought my first Mac in 1995; but I liked their computers, and I figured there was enough life in the platform that I could keep using it for as long as the computer itself survived. I've used the same reasoning every time I get a new Mac; I always figure it's going to be the last one. I still think my current one will be the last one. Yeah, I can quit any time I want. (The guy who largely originally convinced me to get one now has decided he dislikes Mac OS X and is getting a Windows PC.)

Den Beste seems to have some sort of long-standing personal animus toward evangelical Mac advocates. He likes to bang this particular drum a lot and seems angry about it for some reason.

I agree that Apple is pretty much doomed, although I won't try to predict when--they lived through the predictions I was foolishly making years ago.

While I've never owned a Mac, I like the idea but hate the execution. I've passionately hated every time I've had to fix someone's broken MacOS box. (It's a guaranteed stream of cursing for the entire family, thanks to their moronic "hide everything from the user even when it doesn't work" approach.)

Apple has steadfastly and gleefully given up every opportunity they've had to gain market share--one might even say "with elan and flair they consistently surrendered their chances to become successful".

I also agree that Linux will give (is giving) Losedows/Micro$hit a run for their money. Someday (and hey, I keep saying this too :-) people will get fed up with viruses, security holes, blue screen of the day and spyware... and Linux will be patiently waiting. I've been a very happy Linux user for over 10 years, and nowdays I can even run just about any Losedows-based app I want to. 'course I'm one of those kernel hacker types so my expectations are more reasonable...

One interesting point to consider is that Linux is far more portable to new hardware than Losedows. (If Linux'll run natively on IBM Big Iron it can be made to run on just about anything.) It's certainly getting a lot more embedded exposure.

I'm not convinced about Linux yet. I have a lot of heavily pro-linux friends but every one of them is a pretty serious computer user with a pretty good understanding of what happens inside the box.

The one brief flirtation I had with Linux was pretty miserable. Nor have I recently had much in the way of stability issues with XP-Pro - the only un-recoverable crashes have been user related when I've left the system set to a monitor I've removed. Apart from that its pretty sweet.

I can't abide Star Office as a replacement for M$ Office, and as that's one of MS's real cash cows, I expect them to control desktop apps for some time to come.

There are definitely some issues in the "user friendliness" arena with Linux. On the other hand it's all about what you're used to using--my mother was a reasonably adept MS-DOS user and she was certainly not a computer expert by any stretch. I frequently see Micro$oft users doing all sorts of mystery arcane things that probably strike them as completely natural. My own environment would strike most people these days as crushingly primitive, but I get everything done I need to do on a daily basis.

My own view is that operating systems for home use should be much more like the builtin software on the Playstation 2 (or for a really extreme example, the embedded software in a cellphone). It's there, it just works, does everything that's needed and not much more, and doesn't get in the way. Rarely do you hear complaints that the PS/2 crashes in the startup screens or that your cellphone fails to boot because of a messed-up DLL or missing configuration file.

We've grown so used to the totally broken OS paradigm we have now that few people can see any other approach as being viable. For example, the way software is installed currently is insane; there are much better ways of doing this (and no, they don't even have to involve using the Internet :-)

There's a tremendous gap between what some people envision as "the solution" (stupid non-upgradeable black boxes that only run a web browser and Office) and what we have now. My own view is somewhere in the middle, though more toward the primitive side.

I've done similar things with Unix-based systems in the past so I know it can be done, but anything that comes out for home use will also have to run the majority of existing Losedows apps as well as being ultra-user-friendly. I'd like to see this particular problem solved--and I'm pretty sure I could do it eventually, but I keep hoping someone else will do it first.

DenBeste has two assumptions: that Motorola won't put out a significantly better G4 replacement, and that the new IBM chip will be expensive.

I accept the first point. I don't know that Moto won't put out a new chip, but it seems unlikely.

The second point seems shaky, though. Why would the 970 chip cost significantly more than a G4? After all, the numbers sold will rapidly be similar to those of the G4 (Apple is nothing if not an early adopter), and I would think that yields should be roughly equivalent.

Lastly, to Sanitation Engineer: You'd be more persuasive if you laid off the name-calling. Every time you say "Losedows" your credibility gets cut in half. This is from someone who largely agrees with you.

Jon Acheson

Den Beste is an atheist, but he does have religion in one area: computers. Macs are his electronic Iblis, and Windows his digital god. This blinds him, even when he has a good point.

While network effects are important enough to determine who will control a market like personal computers, they are not sufficient to put a competitor out of action. Apple does not need to have a huge base to survive and make profits from their customers. In fact, they have been quite profitable for most of their existence, and I see no reason for that to stop now. While I miss Visio and Project in native form on OSX (and in fact run them in an emulator on my Mac), I do not miss them enough to put up with Windows.

Frankly, I hate having to use Windows at work - even with the full support that a 180000-employee company brings to it. Basically, the interface is clumsy (and I've worked on dozens of OSs over the last 15 years, and use Windows about as much as I use a Mac), the underlying details are infuriating (why do I have to reboot when I reconfigure my network interface? and why can't I have multiple stored configurations for a given interface?), the apps are inconsistent - and for that matter so is the OS - on what keys do what when, searching for items is unreliable and difficult, and so forth. I spend too much of my time on Windows doing tasks related to keeping Windows and the apps functional, as opposed to using them.

I love my Linux server, because except for security updates, I can just leave it to run forever without messing with it. I love my Macs, because they generally don't break and I can play with them all day long without worrying about having to reinstall everything. For that matter, I like most of the UNIX-based systems I work on (not Solaris though - bleah!).

The point of all of this is that I do not like to use Windows. If Apple were to switch to the x86, I'd go with them. (I suspect that Den Beste is wrong, and that Apple would be able to emulate their legacy code fast enough to be usable.) In fact, given that I'm running a G3-based laptop, I'd probably see a speed increase even in emulation. I suspect most Mac users are in a simliar condition. Most of them would stay on their existing Macs until they physically no longer ran if they had no ability to replace them.

"Apple: Going out of business for 20 years now!"

Den beste is right, and he says what a lot of people won't. Most of the people here I see "defending" Apple lose sight of the "big picture". Den Bete's been very good at showing exactly what he's talking about, especially when it comes to performance (Where he's been savaged, but he's pretty much correct).

Of course, there's always room for contextual differences in interpretation. Yes, some people love the Mac and will keep buying them.. but its not enough (as he says) to keep it a viable company on that alone.

Actually, if Den beste had _religion_ about the Mac (as Lileks does, for instance), he'd go into more detail as to the massive bridges that Apple (and particularly Jobs) has burned behind it. Bridges that in my opinion, render Apple a EOL company in the desktop arena. Sure, they might manage to pull something, but its not going to be a resurrection of the Mac.

I love the PPC. Its too bad that Apple is more concerned with doing things the way they (Jobs) wants, rather than what customers really want. The Powerbook's battery life stats make me drool, and a good G4 has _enough_ CPU power to handle my computing needs. Noticeably - this is the only area of *growth* with the Mac market. (And too bad they didn't pick Linux as a base rather than Mach, and then getting the BSD guys involved). That would give them a good shot at building a Linux laptop that would absolutely kick ass, and give them a possible foothold to re-invent the company there.

Raoul: the question is why is his analysis "not good things" - what is factually wrong about them?

As to Linux, I happily use it as a desktop OS. Granted, I'm a UNIX guy, but with the current installs of most of the distros - its something that anybody can use. Most of the people saying "people can't figure it out" ignore how much people have learned about fixing Windows or other systems. The biggest issue Linux faces on the desktop is network effect.

Den beste does get that wrong - no major computer OEM has pushed Linux hard at all. Dell "offered" it (though you couldn't find it on their website for a long time), and noticeably, started offering it the week that a Microsoft exec was on the stand testifying that Microsoft didn't have a monopoly, and that you could get desktops preloaded with other OSes. :)

The one big push is the Wal-Mart Linux box, which I've heard is selling well enough to grab a lot of notice.....

That's not to say that Linux on the desktop is perfect, its got its some warts - but Windows on the desktop is hardly perfect. The single biggest problem with Linux is the driver support - and Microsoft throws a lot of weight around to try and prevent companies from supporting Linux, for that very reason.

Jon: about the cost of the G5: its speculation, but based on the well-known issues of the cost, and development, a G5 or other PPC replacement would have to cost considerably more than the G4s are (which is much more than a comparable Intel/AMD chip). And IBM has no reason to sell a loss-leader just for the privledge of being in Apple.

As to the emulation issue.... I think Den beste *is* missing something.. By the time Apple were to bring out a AMD/Intel based system.. it might be so much faster than the PPC that it could emulate it and pick up speed on the G4. :)

Addison

I've hated Apple Computer ever since they decided to can the only viable alternative to the IBM PC.

The Apple II series was open archetecture. It had programming support from Apple. It was pretty easy to program. It had all sorts of hardware and software vendors lined up to make products for it. Visicalc for the Apple II made home desktop computing happen. There were a couple of clones of the Apple II being sold. There were several Apple II magazines. At one time, the Apple II was considered seriously enough that somebody actually made an IBM PC bridge card for it. The Apple IIGS, the last true upgrade of the Apple II line, had enough computational power and expandability to continue to provide a serious alternative to the IBM PC.

Apple's response? Can the Apple II, and concentrate on everything the Apple II was not (namely, the Macintosh). Yeah, that was really smart of Apple.

Now how did I know even before I read any comments that this was going to turn into a theological discussion?

;-)

SDB has long had a bug about the Mac, but you have to understand the context in which he's operating under. Steven used to hang out a very long time ago in the comp.os.os2.advocacy newsgroup and apply his patented Den Bestian logic to the residents thereof, based in part upon what he saw as being unrealistic expectations and ridiculous arguements being used by the OS/2 crowd. I should know, because I was one of them. He applied a lot of similar arguments against OS/2 back then (1994 to 1999 or so) and got a lot of grief, name calling, flames, and just plain hatred thrown his way. Nonetheless, one of his earliest predictions was that OS/2 would never become a mainstream OS because of network effect had already broke in favor of Microsoft-and that certainly came true.Once Windows 95 came out he also predicted that it would effectively kill commercial OS/2 development-and that came true either. Steven's big fixation really seemed to me to be advocay to the point of unrealistic fanaticism, and that's certainly true about the Mac. Nor is he really in love with Microsoft, if you ask him he'll explain patiently that what he's interested in is the total package based upon hardware, applications, convenience, upgrades, etc. He isn't dogmatic upon this point, for example he runs the USS Clueless on a Cobalt Qube which is a Linux box.

Den Beste makes two Apple related arguements: (1) The new IBM chips will make Macs too expensive and porting over to the x86 would doom Apple by cutting off the legacy apps. (2) The online Music Store is the new breadbasket that can help Apple exit the computer industry.

I connect the dots and see a different answer. The online music store gives Apple the safety net required to switch to x86. Apple can port iLIFE, Quicktime, and OSX to x86 (while selling PPC hardware) and they'll create a far superior dual boot option than Linux. They might even get DELL to sell OSX as a dual boot option. They'd get $$$ from Windows/Linux users that they otherwise would not have gotten and give people an opportunity to try the OS without a huge hardware investment.

If the idea catches on they can take the risk of pissing off their own base with whatever solution they try. If the idea does not work they haven't lost much since most of the coding for x86 is going on anyways. Either way they've still got online music money coming in.

Why does the 970 have to be uber-expensive? 1) Most of the R&D was expended for the Power4; 2) Apple is not the only customer for the 970--IBM is going to be popping these suckers into their blade servers.

SDB argues from faulty premises around Apple, and continues to be blinded by his hatred for them.

Addison: Why does it matter that Apple went with mach/BSD (darwin) and not linux? Does running the linux kernel give them some sort of Super Special Bonus to sales? Given that most "linux" software isn't kernel dependent, it's no surprise that most of the "big stuff" available as source runs on OSX with fair ease. (Plus, er, the PCI powermacs run linux anyway. If you want them to. Apple shipping with linux wouldn't get them any more sales, that I can tell.)

Thomas: You say that the Apple II was the "only viable laternative to the IBM PC"? Well, maybe in 1982/3. But, er, do you think the core system would be capable of usefully "keeping up" with the PC (itself a much newer design than the A2 core) pasy, say, the 286?

I can't imagine an A2 "family" machine equivalent to even a 386 that doesn't essentially become a Macintosh anyway. I don't see what the problem is. "Open" architecture? Yes, but that's not a panacea. An open-and-outdated architecture isn't much good. Yes, Apple killed the IIGS, which could compete with the original PC.

Remember that the IIGS came out (in quantity) in 1987 - the same year as the Mac II. Next year, the IIx came out, at nearly 8 times the clock speed of the IIGS, and a real 32 bit CPU (compared to teh IIGS's 16 bit 65816), and more capable than the IIGS in every way.

The A2 series wasn't a real competitor to the IBM PC, really, since the PC ATs came out. In 1984. Two years before the IIgs hit the market at all.

And this, of course, ignores the underlying structural issues of the A2 family compared with the IBM PCs. (Open, schmopen, give me a Mac over an A2 any day - and this from someone who had an A2 clone and loved them at the time. But the Macs were better machines than the A2s. Period.)

The thing that amuses me is that so much passion is expended over something that's one step above the burning Tastes Great vs. Less Filling controversy.

I suppose it's understandable; computers still cost a significant chunk of money and nobody wants to feel like a chump. Even when it's just the choice of which OS to run on the hardware, it's a major commitment in time, software and learning. So choosers end up considerably emotionally invested in believing that they made the right choice; hence all the screaming advocacy you see.

A friend of mine pointed out that in these markets for expensive items like computers and cars, much of the advertising is actually aimed at people who have already bought the product, to keep them loyal and emotionally connected to the brand.