Hacker News Reader

I don't think for a second that Linux/Open Source is an emerging threat to OS X, sorry.

To be honest - as a relatively new Ubuntu user - and an occasional OSX user - trying to get stuff done on the mac is beginning to annoy me more and more.

Apple make some fantastic software - the iLife suite is pretty awesome. That might be reason enough to buy one - (and the hardware design is typically good as well). But just looking at the OS - and what I use the system for on a day to day basis - and Apple's advantage in the OS space is a lot less than it used to be. (And snow leopard doesn't look like changing that from an end user perspective)

rythie said,

"Apple's emerging threat is Linux/Open Source, because " [reasons]

to which you (mikecuesta)replied

"I don't think for a second that Linux/Open Source is an emerging threat to OS X, " with no rationale or logic to support that viewpoint.

"I don't think X", without supporting reasons is an almost meaningless response in a discussion. I am surprised it got so many upvotes. Just imagine someone responded to you with "Oh yeah? I do think so" without providing any rationale.

Your response could validate rythie's "classical innovator's dilemma" argument, since in a classic innovator's dilemma the proponents of the disrupted product never "think for a second" that the disrupting product is "an emerging threat" till it is too late.

It is also pretty clear that if you want to play high end games on your computer, you buy a PC. I'm not sure it will be this way forever- if Mac continues to gain popularity more games will probably be released for Mac- but as it stands Mac isn't even an option for gamers like me (or any other non windows OS).

It is also pretty clear that if you do play high end games you end up spending a lot on hardware upgrades.

I doubt that the Mac can really compete in the market for high end games since most of the machines it sells are not very upgradeable.

The age of PC gaming being a driving force behind sales is coming to an end though. It's just too expensive and too much of a hassle, both for developers and end-users, which is why console games are bringing in over twice as much revenue than PC games these days.

A market for enthusiast PC gamers who value the customisability they get will, of course, persist, but the mainstream is going elsewhere and moving into gaming appliances like consoles. And if somebody's got an XBox 360 or PS3 for their gaming needs, does it really matter to them how well their computer plays games?

The trend in gaming right now is working in Apple's favour, not against it and the fact that Apple does not have a place in its line-up for a customisable gaming machine is becoming increasingly irrelevant.

This also works in Linux's favor too - I have a Wii.

That's probably never going to happen though.

Another big reason why Apple fans pay a premium is for the seamless integration experience that doesn't make you think. Since Apple controls 100% of the hardware it can ensure that there are never any problems like x drivers that crash randomly and take your system down.

Linux will always be oriented towards the hobbyist type that, when things break down, opens up the box and tinkers inside. Linux can't control the hardware it's deployed on so it'll always be at a massive disadvantage.

I used a Windows XP laptop for the first time in ages yesterday, it struck me just how cumbersome that is compared to Linux. This is the process I saw:

I inserted a USB thumb drive, it asked me if I want to install something or other, giving some warning that Microsoft hadn't approved it or something. Then I plugged in a mouse - it did the same thing. Then I started Office and again with something about installing and then asked my name. Even that process is simplified since someone had already installed/bought Office which doesn't normally come with as full version on most machines nowadays.

To do the same on a fresh install of Ubuntu I just plug in the USB stick and double click - I never get asked anything.

I would say Ubuntu is already better than Windows XP.

There's a chance Ubuntu is better than the years-old operating system. I've had Ubuntu driver issues with all three of my attempted installs, but if I hadn't had those issues I might prefer it to Windows XP for some things.

That said, Windows 7 (and even most of Windows Vista) is more polished than Ubuntu in its current state, and its plug-and-play is much better.

If Windows 7 is as good as people say that it's self would take a cut into Apple's products.

*its, not it's. :-)

Windows 7 isn't mindblowing. I actually dislike a lot about it. Microsoft doesn't have a clue regarding their design.

That said, when you plug in a mouse it works without complaining. My point was that the specific gripe ("Windows XP has a lot of noise") was taken care of in Vista and is now fairly polished for Windows 7.

Linux can't control the hardware it's deployed on so it'll always be at a massive disadvantage.

What do you mean?

Any vendor can take Linux and tailor it to their hardware (e.g. Tivo) and make it a seamless experience for the enduser. You might not recognize it as Linux at that point, but it still is Linux and that is one of its design potentials (if not goals).

That's not to say someone couldn't come along and do with Linux what Apple did with Mach/BSD/NeXT. A focused Linux-based OS with a seamless new UI and app suite (and good APIs) could be great. In fact, that's one of the things that I like about the Chrome OS idea, no matter how silly it might seem to just throw Chrome on a "bag of drivers."

The problem, of course, is the effort. Software is hard.

Apple basically started from scratch in 2002. A big company with a strong consumer brand, proven track record and lots of cash could do it. Google is such a company. Especially coupled with a paradine shift to web apps and a clear revenue model as a result. I wrote about this here: http://blog.richardcunningham.co.uk/2009/07/what-googles-chr...

Apple did not start from scratch in 2002.

Mac OS X got it's first (server) release in 1999. And even that was a reboot of Nextstep which was originally released in 1989.

Of course, the whole point of Chrome OS is (apparently) to not have a traditional GUI and apps, just a browser, which is most of the stuff Apple had to add onto BSD.

Agreed.

I meant my comment in the context of the message I replied to. In that in 2002 they first tried to push a new OS to the desktop market as it was then. From what I heard about it, nextstep was not anymore advanced compared to the rest of the market than Linux/Ubuntu/Gnome is now to it's market.

I don't believe any company could afford to start back right down to the kernel and low level libraries for a new desktop OS, even it was just going to run a web browser. I would say that any competitor to Apple and Microsoft would have to use a Linux kernel, CUPS etc. as a base - just as OS X used NextStep/BSD as base.