Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Top Ten Apple Rumors of All Time

timothy posted more than 7 years ago | from the blasphemous-rumours dept.

Media (Apple) 170

An anonymous reader writes "CNET have taken a look back at 30 years of Apple rumors during which we have witnessed Apple's 'rise, fall, and rise again, like a kind of technological Jesus Christ.' Some of the rumors are outrageous, and some came true. The list includes such treasures as the Apple-Nintendo merger, which the article calls 'utterly outlandish,' and the persistent rumor that Apple will release Mac OS X for PC — described as 'so counter-productive and financially damaging for Apple that we doubt the company has ever seriously considered it.' There is also mention of the iPhone, which CNET says is 'an elaborate hoax dreamed up by Steve Jobs to keep journalists busy.'"

cancel ×

170 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Mac OS X for the PC (4, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17388432)

Actually, the criticisms of this particular rumour were spot on. Apple would have to be insane to release Mac OS X for the PC.

The distinction people miss though, is that Apple didn't release Mac OS X for the PC. They just built new Macs around an Intel CPU. That's not the same thing as releasing Mac OS X for PCs.

Rhapsody OS DR2 intel (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17388698)

I've used Rhapsody OS DR2 intel on a couple of generic PC's...not the best experience but it booted and responded, started apps and stuff..

m10

Re:Rhapsody OS DR2 intel (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17389796)

You know, I got Windows XP to boot on a couple of generic PC's too. Oh wait, XP isn't OSX. Well, Rhapsody wasn't OSX either, it was NextSTEP for Intel rebranded.

Re:Mac OS X for the PC (2, Informative)

ArcherB (796902) | more than 7 years ago | (#17388870)

Releasing OSX for the PC would allow Apple to compete with MS on MS's own level without hampering the end user with Apples expensive hardware requirements.

Re:Mac OS X for the PC (1)

jcr (53032) | more than 7 years ago | (#17388902)

If they did it today, MS could kill Apple by suspending development of MS Office for the Mac. When Apple has a complete suite of business apps, then it's a different story.

-jcr

Re:Mac OS X for the PC (1, Interesting)

ArcherB (796902) | more than 7 years ago | (#17388956)

If they did it today, MS could kill Apple by suspending development of MS Office for the Mac. When Apple has a complete suite of business apps, then it's a different story.

That would be true if Apple's primary target consumer was the business. Since Apple is targeting the home, all they need is a "good enough" office suite. Open Office should fit.

Re:Mac OS X for the PC (1)

JavaSavant (579820) | more than 7 years ago | (#17389000)

So long as MS were to make any effort to maintain compatibility, I might agree with you. Seeing that if Microsoft were to suspend Office development for the Mac, there is no reason to believe that they would then make any attempts to make the two office suites interoperable. Having a platform office suite isn't enough in today's day in age. It needs to be able to create documents that are readable by everyone.

Re:Mac OS X for the PC (1)

masdog (794316) | more than 7 years ago | (#17390154)

For everything Microsoft tried to break, though, OpenOffice developers could, and probably would, reverse engineer or develop workarounds. Consider Microsoft's own handling of the .doc format. They tried to introduce quirks between different versions of Word that would force people to upgrade to the newest version.

I believe Microsoft actually tried something like this once. Most OEM PCs, the ones you buy at Best Buy or Walmart anyway, would come with Microsoft Works. Works, for some unknown reason, wasn't compatible with Word. Word could open files from a variety of office suites, but it couldn't open a file from their lower-end suite. Even the converters Microsoft developed wouldn't work properly.

Of course, no one ever needed to do type a file in Works and print it off in Word. Except for those kids in high school (or college) who's printer wouldn't work at home.

Re:Mac OS X for the PC (2, Informative)

Junior J. Junior III (192702) | more than 7 years ago | (#17389504)

<cough>iWork [apple.com] </cough>

Re:Mac OS X for the PC (1)

jcr (53032) | more than 7 years ago | (#17390512)

Do you see a spreadsheet in iWork? Neither do I.

-jcr

Re:Mac OS X for the PC (1)

Gordonjcp (186804) | more than 7 years ago | (#17389700)

MS could kill Apple by suspending development of MS Office for the Mac

Actually, if MS killed off Office for the Mac, it wouldn't make a lot of difference. People use Macs for audio, video and graphics work, which you can't do in Windows.

Re:Mac OS X for the PC (1, Troll)

king-manic (409855) | more than 7 years ago | (#17389802)

Actually, if MS killed off Office for the Mac, it wouldn't make a lot of difference. People use Macs for audio, video and graphics work, which you can't do in Windows.

Actually the majority of the tools needed to do video/audio on a Mac have equivilents ont he PC. The Artistic types simply prefer the mac or need retraining to use a PC as efficiently. To them it's not worth it but there isn't a real reason for the difference, and hasn't been for some time. Some of the nice Max onyl tools do provide some reason but there are equivalents on the PC side.

Re:Mac OS X for the PC (1)

ComaVN (325750) | more than 7 years ago | (#17389818)

audio, video and graphics work, which you can't do in Windows.


You can't be serious.

Re:Mac OS X for the PC (1)

jcr (53032) | more than 7 years ago | (#17390340)

if MS killed off Office for the Mac, it wouldn't make a lot of difference.

Don't bet on it. I wish that were the case, but it's not.

-jcr

Re:Mac OS X for the PC (2, Informative)

krakelohm (830589) | more than 7 years ago | (#17388950)

I think the Apple expensive hardware myth had been pretty much debunked. True Apple does not sell $300 PC's, but for comparative quality machines Apple is priced just right in my eyes.

Re:Mac OS X for the PC (1)

ArcherB (796902) | more than 7 years ago | (#17388978)

I think the Apple expensive hardware myth had been pretty much debunked. True Apple does not sell $300 PC's, but for comparative quality machines Apple is priced just right in my eyes.

Well, I should have pointed out that I don't buy expensive Dell hardware either. I roll my own. Maybe I should have said "proprietary" hardware.

Re:Mac OS X for the PC (0, Troll)

bjohnson (3225) | more than 7 years ago | (#17389730)

I roll my own. Maybe I should have said "proprietary" hardware.

WTF dude, you fab your own processor and motherboards? Solder your own memory?

"You keep using that word...I do not think it means what you think it means..."

Re:Mac OS X for the PC (3, Insightful)

ArcherB (796902) | more than 7 years ago | (#17389852)

WTF dude, you fab your own processor and motherboards? Solder your own memory?

"You keep using that word...I do not think it means what you think it means..."


I use it meaning that I buy the parts I want and put them in the configuration I want. I do not let some engineer under pressure from marketing make those decisions for me. I use "roll my own" in the same way that I would roll my own cigarettes. I don't grow the "tobacco" and pulp wood for my own paper. I buy it all in a store in separate components and put it all together myself.

Re:Mac OS X for the PC (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17389462)

yeah, but you're a faggot fanboy.

Re:Mac OS X for the PC (0, Offtopic)

ucblockhead (63650) | more than 7 years ago | (#17389110)

You mean, the expensive hardware that Apple sells at a high profit margin?

Re:Mac OS X for the PC (1)

ArcherB (796902) | more than 7 years ago | (#17389668)

You mean, the expensive hardware that Apple sells at a high profit margin?
Yeah, the hardware that suffers from economies of scale.

Besides, Microsoft seems to be doing OK without selling that high profit hardware. How does the MS profit margin compare to Apples?

Re:Mac OS X for the PC (4, Informative)

Bastian (66383) | more than 7 years ago | (#17389414)

Releasing OSX for the PC would allow Apple to compete with MS on MS's own level without hampering the end user with Apples expensive hardware requirements.

That's true, but it's only a tiny, tiny little part of the truth. The full truth is that Apple is nowhere near being prepared for such a move and would have little to no chance of succeeding if they were to attempt to compete with Microsoft in the PC market. They could try, but it would be about as smart as me trying to best a lion in unarmed combat. Why is this?

Drivers
Application support
Microsoft's bundling deals with nearly every hardware manufacturer
Microsoft already having a massive headstart on the PC market (essentially 100%)

As well as an unknown number of other compatibility issues. For example, Apple includes lots of libraries that are heavily optimized for specific hardware, such as VecLib. Right now VecLib works with G3's, G4's, G5's, Core Duo, and Core 2 Duo, and only certain chipsets for each of those CPUs. I have no idea if VecLib would work on a Pentium III or a Celeron. I do know that if it doesn't work, it will in turn break a whole lot of OS X applications, including a large number of the ones I've written.

Also keep in mind that the first four issues all support each other. For example, Microsoft doesn't have to write drivers for every random piece of hardware that comes out for the PC market, because hardware manufacturers do that for them. For Apple to jumpstart OS X on the PC market, they would have to spend time and money getting a whole lot of hardware working, and I wouldn't be surprised if the cost of doing so is greater than all the money in Apple's coffers.

So drivers alone most likely renders OS X for PCs as something that just can't possibly happen outside of Apple critics' wet dreams. Add all the other issues on top of that and it's easy to see why CNet pointed out that the idea is so silly that it's doubtful that Apple has ever even given a moment's serious consideration to the idea.

Re:Mac OS X for the PC (1)

ArcherB (796902) | more than 7 years ago | (#17389638)

Of course, Apple would need stringent hardware requirements at first, but things would loosen up as time passes. Remember, there were not drivers for Win95 in '95, no drivers for Win2000 in 2000, and there are few drivers for Vista now.

I don't know enough about Apple coding to comment about VecLib or any other required libraries, but I see no reason why a software emulation couldn't take over (other than performance) until specific drivers could be written and applied as hardware detection warranted.

I never said it would be easy, but it would open OSX up to the other 95% of PC's out there. (PC meaning Personal Computer, not Wintel based machine). Hell, I'd buy it and dump MS in a heartbeat! It's those last few apps that's keeping me from doing so now.

Re:Mac OS X for the PC (0, Flamebait)

Total_Wimp (564548) | more than 7 years ago | (#17390508)

The reverse, however, is a very doable possibility. If Apple were to pre-load Widows on Macs, or even better, partner with a PC maker like Dell to load and sell, they could make a nice profit selling desirable, expensive hardware, get massive application and driver support, and Microsoft would actually be on their side.

Why partner? Apple fans would interpret it as a move away from OSX. They would be unhappy in a major way. If they ship the computers to Dell and Dell loads the OS, taking a nice percentage in the process, then Apple fans might not feel so bad about the situation.

It would be a great experiment. If the Apple hardware turned out to not be so popular with PC folks, they could pull out without pissing off too much in their customer base. But if they turn out to be popular? Lets just say that the iPod and iTunes are available to PC users for a reason. That reason is that there are a lot more PC users than Mac users, therefore they have the opportunity to make more money. By "more money," I mean "huge fucking mountains of cash that they could never hope to make off of the tiny Mac community."

As the guy said, the evidence shows that Apple is a hardware company with a nice OS thrown in for "free". But via Boot Camp, Apple has freely acknowledged that other OSs can run just fine on their hardware. They'd be fools to not capitalize on the Windows market for high end hardware, if it exists in enough numbers. Even with a small percentage of the Windows market, Apple could make many times what they do now.

BTW, the biggest argument I've heard against this boils down to "Steve loves OS X like his wife, children and America combined! And Microsoft is Evil! So is Dell!" He went to Intel. He released boot camp. He makes most of his money from music players. He's on the board of Disney. Apple is a business. If it makes business sense, they'll do it.

TW

Re:Mac OS X for the PC (2, Insightful)

rucs_hack (784150) | more than 7 years ago | (#17389502)

that would pitch them into a gui arms war that they would find hard to win, and the loss could cost them dearly.

Yes Apple have always had better stuff (or so I think), but microsoft have such a huge pot of cash to mis-inform/cajole potential buyers, that they wouldn't stand a chance in direct competition. Better to let things develop as they are, with Apples hardware getting an ever larger mindshare.

Re:Mac OS X for the PC (1)

ArcherB (796902) | more than 7 years ago | (#17389696)

that would pitch them into a gui arms war that they would find hard to win, and the loss could cost them dearly.

Yes Apple have always had better stuff (or so I think), but microsoft have such a huge pot of cash to mis-inform/cajole potential buyers, that they wouldn't stand a chance in direct competition. Better to let things develop as they are, with Apples hardware getting an ever larger mindshare.


It wouldn't be easy, but keep in mind that in the beginning, Apple was bigger than Microsoft. Compatibility is what allowed MS to leave everyone else in the dust. It's the only thing that Apple does not have over M$.

Re:Mac OS X for the PC (1)

rucs_hack (784150) | more than 7 years ago | (#17389768)

I think they had the right idea too. Life would be so much easier if the pc didn't have so many possible variations in hardware.

Alas, the real world doesn't work like that, or not since IBM released the pc spec they used for anyone to use.

My only problem with apple is the cost of their machines, and that just because I'm not overloaded with cash. Otherwise I'd own all macs. As it is I have to use many pc's for cluster work.

Re:Mac OS X for the PC (1)

14CharUsername (972311) | more than 7 years ago | (#17389528)

Yeah, because Apple sure doesn't want people to buy their expensive hardware.

Re:Mac OS X for the PC (1)

king-manic (409855) | more than 7 years ago | (#17389754)

Releasing OSX for the PC would allow Apple to compete with MS on MS's own level without hampering the end user with Apples expensive hardware requirements.

About 50% of the Apple advantage is the hardware and how it "just works". The majority of stability issues on a non malware/worm infested Windows Pc is due to poor drivers. Apple would be stupid to step into that mire.

Re:Mac OS X for the PC (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17390238)

Releasing OSX for the PC would allow Apple to compete with MS

But Apple aren't in competition with Microsoft. They are in competition with Dell etc. Sure, they both develop operating systems, but that's Microsoft's core product, whereas Apple's core products are Macs, with OS X merely being a differentiator.

Re:Mac OS X for the PC (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17389086)

the persistent rumor that Apple will release Mac OS X for PC -- described as 'so counter-productive and financially damaging for Apple that we doubt the company has ever seriously considered it.'

Of course it would hurt Apple: they can only make money by forcing a monopoly on their hardware. Let's face it: if they offered OS X for any PC, it would be a disasterous flop in the marketplace.

The only reason Apple can make money is by forcing Apple customers to remain Apple customers. That's why they destroyed the businesses of anyone making "Apple Compatible" machines, and why they force people to pay over $150 for the kind of OS service packs which Microsoft has been giving away for free... for over a decade.

Windows- usable on almost any machine, and they don't lock you into one hardware vendor.
OS X- only useable on computers made by Apple, and you have no other alternative.

As usual, we see the hypocracy involved in the shrill, puling whine of the FOSS community, who absolutely loves Apple.
Apple: the darling brutal, law-breaking, document falsifying monopolist of the Slashdot community.

Re:Mac OS X for the PC (1)

rolyatknarf (973068) | more than 7 years ago | (#17389460)

"they force people to pay over $150 for the kind of OS service packs which Microsoft has been giving away for free..."

Here we go again. This always comes up. Can you please post links to documentation that supports that statement? Please show me where these Apple service packs are forced on Apple computer users. Just one time I would like someone to show me this is a fact.

Re:Mac OS X for the PC (1)

neimon (713907) | more than 7 years ago | (#17389348)

Arg. Once and for all.

What's the consumer-grade weakness of Linux? Its inability to deal with consumer-grade brains and consumer-grade random collections of computer bits.

What does having your own hardware platform do? You know what damned video, CD and audio drivers to use, and you don't have to be a genius to set it up.

Put OSX on a PC and watch it fail WORSE than Windows because Microsoft has all that hardware vendor cooperation locked up.

It's as simple as this: People don't want to know how to run their computers. They just wanna push dah button. Vertical integration means you can control the entire user experience and make it consumer-grade.

Re:Mac OS X for the PC (1)

spaeschke (774948) | more than 7 years ago | (#17389598)

Considering that Mac desktops are pretty much just beige boxes nowadays, I don't understand why they won't sell their motherboards so people who refuse to pay their outrageous desktop prices (me) can roll their own. Hell, keep the motherboards priced at a healthy margin (say, $400), but just make them available. I'll Newegg all the other components myself and save a bundle. As it is, I'm a consumer who likes Apple, would love to have a dual booting Mac/Windows rig and is willing to pay a slight premium to get it. However, I won't pay the stupid amounts that Apple demands for their desktop systems when I know full well what a comparable PC system assembled myself costs. OSX is good, it's just not that good.

Why lose our business? They'd make a nice comfortable margin on a motherboard, make some money on me buying their OS, and better yet, get mindshare.

Rise/fall/rise (5, Funny)

sczimme (603413) | more than 7 years ago | (#17388452)


"CNET have taken a look back at 30 years of Apple rumors during which we have witnessed Apple's 'rise, fall, and rise again, like a kind of technological Jesus Christ.'

Or, you know, like a yo-yo.

Re:Rise/fall/rise (1)

creimer (824291) | more than 7 years ago | (#17388708)

If it was a yo-yo running another popular OS, the string would break and the user dead from a virus infection.

Re:Rise/fall/rise (1)

Andrewkov (140579) | more than 7 years ago | (#17388714)

like a kind of technological Jesus Christ.

When I saw this line, I wondered if Steve Jobs wrote the article.

Re:Rise/fall/rise (1)

M-G (44998) | more than 7 years ago | (#17390418)

Yeah, but Jobs and Woz were probably both virgins at Apple's birth.

Like a kind of technological Jesus Christ (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17388456)

He didn't play a lot of games either.

Re:Like a kind of technological Jesus Christ (1)

Alcibaides (1042922) | more than 7 years ago | (#17388576)

Are you kidding me? He played games we can only dream about. (At least until the PS8 comes out.)

And the list (4, Informative)

JayTech (935793) | more than 7 years ago | (#17388492)

1. Apple to buy Nintendo 2. Mac OS for PC users 3. The return of Newton 4. Apple to buy BeOS 5. The secret OSX build 6. The Apple iPhone 7. iTunes as a record label 8. Widescreen Video iPod 9. 30TH anniversary Mac 10. Apple to buy Disney

Re:And the list (Formatted) (2, Informative)

zcubed (916242) | more than 7 years ago | (#17388634)

1. Apple to buy Nintendo
2. Mac OS for PC users
3. The return of Newton
4. Apple to buy BeOS
5. The secret OSX build
6. The Apple iPhone
7. iTunes as a record label
8. Widescreen Video iPod
9. 30TH anniversary Mac
10. Apple to buy Disney

Re:And the list (1)

JayTech (935793) | more than 7 years ago | (#17388648)

Mod me n00b for not hitting "preview"... here's the list properly formatted:

1. Apple to buy Nintendo
2. Mac OS for PC users
3. The return of Newton
4. Apple to buy BeOS
5. The secret OSX build
6. The Apple iPhone
7. iTunes as a record label
8. Widescreen Video iPod
9. 30TH anniversary Mac
10. Apple to buy Disney

Personally, I would have chosen "Apple to buy Disney" to be the top pick being that there was a huge amount of buzz generated online and in the media, more so than any of the other rumors IMO.

Sun/Apple rumor has been alive for years (2, Interesting)

Infonaut (96956) | more than 7 years ago | (#17389354)

That was a big one [uakom.sk] for a while.

Seems now the rumors have flipped [marketwatch.com] on that one.

Re:And the list (2, Interesting)

CrazyTalk (662055) | more than 7 years ago | (#17389368)

When I saw the "30th anniversary Mac", I did some quick math - Mac came out in 1984, plus 30 years equals 2014 - it didn't make sense until I realized they meant the 30th anniversary of APPLE. In which case, the 30th anniversary computer should be a new version of the Apple ][ - now THAT would be cool. (OK technically the Apple 1, but that would be kind of silly)

Mixed Metaphor (5, Funny)

Tackhead (54550) | more than 7 years ago | (#17388504)

> CNET have taken a look back at 30 years of Apple rumors during which we have witnessed Apple's 'rise, fall, and rise again, like a kind of technological Jesus Christ.

...or toilet seat, yo-yo, and Windows server, for that matter.

Which reminds me of an ancient Minbari textfile I found once.

"We are Insanely Grey.
We stand between the candle and the flame.
The darkness and the light.
The marketroid and the engineer.
Between the Jobs and the Woz."

Re:Mixed Metaphor (1)

WilliamSChips (793741) | more than 7 years ago | (#17388664)

Wait, an ancient Minbari textfile in English? Shouldn't it be in Minbari, or am I missing something?

Re:Mixed Metaphor (3, Insightful)

Knara (9377) | more than 7 years ago | (#17389104)

Though attempting to avoid spoilers for Babylon 5 may be outdated at this point, I'll just point out that if the term "ancient" means the standard Minbari "A thousand years ago when Valen came", then it's entirely possible that the text could be in English, given that Valen knew English (or, at least, Earth Standard).

Re:Mixed Metaphor (1)

WilliamSChips (793741) | more than 7 years ago | (#17389224)

Okay, so time travel. Got it.

What about.... (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17388518)

Apple Computers actually cost the same as PCs when you consider all the features that they include as "standard".

Oh wait, that's under the top ten rationalizations of Apple fanboys, my bad.

Re:What about.... (3, Interesting)

nutznboltz2003 (832752) | more than 7 years ago | (#17389020)

Apple Computers actually cost the same as PCs when you consider all the features that they include as "standard".
Oh wait, that's under the top ten rationalizations of Apple fanboys, my bad.
Actually, back when iLife first came out, that was a very compelling package that did not exist by default with Windows, and it did help even the cost. Granted, over time, Windows has caught up very nicely, and the RC candidates of Vista Ultimate included pretty much the same things as the iLife suite. Some are not as nice (Windows Movie Maker still lags behind iMovie), but they are getting there.

Everyone makes excuses for what they buy, and a lot of people like to mock things they don't fully understand. People have their reasons, be it that's what they have allways used, to that's what their tech friend recommended. I myself use both platforms, and have tried linux before, but I'm not a linux guru and could not get a stable distro running on my laptop (nc6320). That model apparently has a lot of weird issues. Of course, even the release version of Vista Business edition failed to recognize most of the laptops hardware.

Fanbois aside, both machines have a place in the world, and both are good at what they were designed to do. Failure to realize this shows signs of ignorance or apathy. Which one is it? My guess is, fanbois don't know, and they don't care.

--nutz

Re:What about.... (1)

z-kungfu (255628) | more than 7 years ago | (#17389196)

the truth hurts yo so bad mr. windows/pc fanboy....

Re:What about.... (1)

WilliamSChips (793741) | more than 7 years ago | (#17389302)

Only if you buy a computer OEM. Something I would never do for a desktop unless I needed a huge number of them.

Re:What about.... (1)

ozamosi (615254) | more than 7 years ago | (#17389808)

When looking for a powerful, small (12-13 inches) laptop, Apple was way cheaper than other PC equivalents. Of course, the Apple didn't have as much extras (fingerprint reader, PCMCIA port etc)... I talked to a friend who bought a iBook a few years ago, and he said that he bought his because it was cheaper as well.

My point is that they give you value for powerfull, tiny machines. I wouldn't buy anything else from them, though (I wouldn't buy any Apple hardware, since I use Linux, and Apple managed to take the supported Intel hardware and fuck it up completely, but that's a different story)

For the record, I got 10% discount for being a student (so did my friend). Without that, it might have been as expensive as, or perhaps even more expensive than other options.

#11 (-1, Troll)

moore.dustin (942289) | more than 7 years ago | (#17388598)

Apple gaining large market share in OS market. We have to deal with every .0025% raise in market share by listening to fanboy's forecasting the demise of Microsoft.

Re:#11 (1)

Pfhreak (662302) | more than 7 years ago | (#17390372)

Personally, I always find the reactions to the latest market share data funny. It seems like responses fall mainly in two categories: Apple fanboys shouting that a microscopic increase in market share is proof that Microsoft is a dinosaur well on its way to extinction, and Microsoft fanboys who say that, because Apple still doesn't have >50% market share, they're going to go out of business any day now, just as soon as the iPod stops being the "in" thing. The rest of us (Linux/other OS fans, people who use Apple and/or Microsoft OSes, but aren't fanboys about it, etc.) seem to just roll our eyes about how overblown market share data is.

iPhone (3, Informative)

sgt.greywar (1039430) | more than 7 years ago | (#17388618)

The iPhone meme is my favorite here. Despite the fact that Cisco owns the rights to iPhone and has for years even Slashdot has people who simply refuse to believe. I actually own an "iPhone" from and it ain't Apple folks. Never will be either. Its just a Skype phone.

Caught up on names (2, Insightful)

Bastian (66383) | more than 7 years ago | (#17388728)

The focus of the rumor is not the name iPhone, that's just the popular name for the rumor because Apple prefixes everything with a lowercase I. The point of the rumor is the idea that Apple might make a cell phone. It'd be essentially the same rumor whether it's called the iCell, the MacPhone, the PhoneBook Pro, or even if the phone were going to be called the iChat and Apple's instant messaging client were going to just be renamed Bonjour AV or something.

Too Literal (4, Insightful)

SuperKendall (25149) | more than 7 years ago | (#17388762)

I actually own an "iPhone" from and it ain't Apple folks.

Yes we all know Cisco owns the 'iPhone" trademark.

However it's just as obvious Apple CAN release a phone and name it something else. The name "iPhone" is simply symbolic of a phone from Apple that can also work with the same data an iPod works with and probably have a similar interface. You are being way to literal in claiming that just because Cisco has released a phone apple cannot because one name in the vast universe of possible names is now taken...

That said I'm only about 50% sure Apple will really release a phone, and it's not just a hoax as CNet is claiming. Personally I would like a more fully featured phone that could work on an MVNO network just as Virgin Mobile phones do today (no virgin mobile phone supports Bluetooth, for example), and also a phone that synchronized better with a computer and was more seamless to use as a data connection (something you cannot get with TMobile pay as you go plans even if the phone supports it). So there is a lot Apple could bring to a phone, I just don't know if they really want to enter that market.

Re:Too Literal (3, Interesting)

Hawthorne01 (575586) | more than 7 years ago | (#17388890)

I think with new Apple products, it comes down to this:

If it's a gadget that Steve Jobs uses in his everyday life, he wants it to be better. And if it makes sense for Apple to build it, they do.

Steve uses computers - Apple improves the Mac line and OS X to where they're the most stylish, well-designed computers on the market.

Steve listens to music - Apple comes out with the iPod

Steve doesn't play video games - I'm an unabashed Mac fanboy, but I gotta admit that OS X just blows for game selection.

Steve uses a cellphone - Hmmm..... Now here's where it gets interesting. Is there a cell phone on the market today that even approaches the power, design and ease of use of a Mac or an iPod? Obviously, no. Now, is Steve willing to shake up the cell phone industry like he did the music biz?

Aye, there's the rub.

Re:Too Literal (0, Troll)

Lorkki (863577) | more than 7 years ago | (#17389866)

Is there a cell phone on the market today that even approaches the power, design and ease of use of a Mac or an iPod? Obviously, no.

The current line of phones are already crashing and locking up on occasion - all we need now is less colour and one or two gimmick features and we're pretty much there.

Re:Too Literal (2, Funny)

Bastard of Subhumani (827601) | more than 7 years ago | (#17389536)

The name "iPhone" is simply symbolic of a phone from Apple that can also work with the same data an iPod works with and probably have a similar interface
I'd so totally enjoy entering phone numbers - or even better, SMS messages - with that little wheel thingy.

Re:iPhone (1)

ubergenius (918325) | more than 7 years ago | (#17388792)

When people refer to "iPhone", what they basically mean is an Apple phone. The name clearly won't be "iPhone" as another company owns the copyright on that name. However, that does not mean that Apple will not come out with a phone that will compete in the mobile market.

Now, it is my personal belief that they will not be doing this, for various reasons, but just because someone refers to an "iPhone" doesn't make them non-believers in the existing copyrights, but rather showing laziness, in that it is easier to call it an iPhone than to say "Apple created cellular phone".

Re:iPhone (2, Interesting)

sgt.greywar (1039430) | more than 7 years ago | (#17388844)

Sometimes that is true but looking back through Slash you will find that many of the "stories" about the release of an Apple phone actually are sparked by the new release of an actual Cisco iPhone product that Apple fanbois leapt upon with the breathless credulity of a Myspacer forwarding to their first chain letter.

Re:iPhone (1)

Dunbal (464142) | more than 7 years ago | (#17389564)

The name clearly won't be "iPhone" as another company owns the copyright on that name.

      Interesting how, due to the now draconian copyright laws, people are trying to copyright things that really are only covered by trademarks...

yet more 'technologial jesus' jokes (1)

192939495969798999 (58312) | more than 7 years ago | (#17388630)

technological Jesus's mac doesn't crash. Of course, the miracle is that neither does his windows PC!

technological Jesus downloads just 1 song onto his iPod, and 500 people can listen to it simultaneously.

technological Jesus just has to touch a windows PC, and it turns into a mac.

Alright Dotters, let's get this out of the way. (1)

Dystopian Rebel (714995) | more than 7 years ago | (#17388766)

With just one round-house kick, Technological Jesus can stagger Chuck Norris.

Re:Alright Dotters, let's get this out of the way. (1)

creimer (824291) | more than 7 years ago | (#17388928)

Anyone can beat Chuck Norris. Can Technological Jesus beat Santa Claus?

Re:Alright Dotters, let's get this out of the way. (1)

Dunbal (464142) | more than 7 years ago | (#17389078)

With just one round-house kick, Technological Jesus can stagger Chuck Norris.

      Only in Kansas...

Re:Alright Dotters, let's get this out of the way. (2, Funny)

rob1980 (941751) | more than 7 years ago | (#17389294)

Technological Jesus extracts confessions from Jack Bauer.

Re:yet more 'technologial jesus' jokes (1)

WilliamSChips (793741) | more than 7 years ago | (#17389132)

And when he touches the Mac, it turns into a Linux computer.

Re:yet more 'technologial jesus' jokes (1)

Oliver Defacszio (550941) | more than 7 years ago | (#17390212)

And I forgive him, for he know not what he doth.

Most disapointing Apple rumor of all time.... (5, Funny)

amichalo (132545) | more than 7 years ago | (#17388780)

I was shocked that after I forwarded a personal email from Steve Jobs to 100 of my closest friends, I did NOT receive a free iPod as promised.

I think they left out the biggest one (5, Funny)

DreadfulGrape (398188) | more than 7 years ago | (#17388808)

"Apple will be out of business in X years."

Re:I think they left out the biggest one (1)

tbone1 (309237) | more than 7 years ago | (#17388996)

I think my old friends at The Mac Observer [macobserver.com] did a great thing when they came up with the Apple Death Knell counter. It's interesting, for those of us who follow this sort of thing, what some of the Death Knells involve and who makes them and why. Heck, I think the editor-in-chief even included himself once.

Re:I think they left out the biggest one (1)

Phat_Tony (661117) | more than 7 years ago | (#17390000)

You forgot the word "beleaguered."

It's "Beleaguered Apple will be out of business in X years," with X usually approximately equal to 5.

Why does this idiot myth continue? (0, Flamebait)

Reality Master 101 (179095) | more than 7 years ago | (#17388920)

the persistent rumor that Apple will release Mac OS X for PC -- described as 'so counter-productive and financially damaging for Apple that we doubt the company has ever seriously considered it.'

Yeah, because it sure hurt Microsoft so release an operating system for the PC, and not come out with their own hardware [sarcasm]. Where does this dumb idea come from? Very, very, very VERY few people buy Apple primarily because they like the hardware. People buy Apple because they like the software. When it comes to computers, APPLE IS A SOFTWARE COMPANY. They are NOT a hardware company!

Within a year, Apple could potentially be the world dominant software supplier if they would just get a clue.

Would it be harder to support a lot of different hardware? Of course! So what? They need to stop being cowards and take the plunge.

Re:Why does this idiot myth continue? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17389124)

Apple enjoys something like 30% margins on hardware sales. Why in the world would they be crazy enough to cannibalize their own hardware sales so people can buy a $300 PC and run Mac OS on it instead? Have you any idea what it would require to write unix kernel extensions to make the 30,000,000 pieces of hardware out there to work properly with the mac os from scratch? Oh yeah, I'm sure they'll get right on that.

Get a clue. It's not going to happen.

Re:Why does this idiot myth continue? (1)

Reality Master 101 (179095) | more than 7 years ago | (#17389510)

Apple enjoys something like 30% margins on hardware sales.

Apple (and Microsoft) enjoy something like 98% margins on software sales.

Why in the world would they be crazy enough to cannibalize their own hardware sales so people can buy a $300 PC and run Mac OS on it instead?

Have you seen how much money Microsoft makes on software?

Have you any idea what it would require to write unix kernel extensions to make the 30,000,000 pieces of hardware out there to work properly with the mac os from scratch?

You don't write a "kernel extension" for every piece of hardware. That's what drivers are for. And oh yeah, third party companies write the drivers, not Apple.

Re:Why does this idiot myth continue? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17390084)

Which leaves kernel-crashing software in the hands of third-parties; something Apple would be loathe to do. By a vast majority the #1 reason a Windows box fails is due to a faulty driver which is supplied by a third-party company. Apple's kernel model isn't any different; drivers load in priveleged kernel space and when they crash they take the entire system with them.

Re:Why does this idiot myth continue? (1)

realisticradical (969181) | more than 7 years ago | (#17389182)

Very, very, very VERY few people buy Apple primarily because they like the hardware.

I slightly beg to differ. It's not that people buy Macs because they think the graphics cards are great or the processors are the best. Though for a time some did.

Apple products are extremely stylish and trendy. The brushed metal look is in along with everything turning white, something I have heard described as the iPod effect.

People also buy apple because of the simplicity of their hardware. I'm very fond of the little things they do like the magnetic power cable and a power supply with a place to wind up the cord.

Still though it's a small consideration in the grand scheme of things. It's OSX that I'm really buying and if I could buy the less expensive and sometimes the better desktop parts I would likely just use the OS on a box of my own construction.

Re:Why does this idiot myth continue? (1)

spaceyhackerlady (462530) | more than 7 years ago | (#17390050)

It's not that people buy Macs because they think the graphics cards are great or the processors are the best. Though for a time some did.

Apple products are extremely stylish and trendy. The brushed metal look is in along with everything turning white, something I have heard described as the iPod effect.

People also buy apple because of the simplicity of their hardware. I'm very fond of the little things they do like the magnetic power cable and a power supply with a place to wind up the cord...

I didn't buy my Mac Mini because of the hardware. I bought it because it's a neat little box that can do cool shit.

Of course it looks cool. It's designed as a unit, a coherent whole (hardware and software), something the Windoze folks have never gotten quite right. It's one damned cool package, everything from the box it came in to the documentation. How could I lose?

Nowadays it's pretty much taken for granted that any box you buy will have enough CPU and memory to do what it's supposed to do. The whole package is what matters more. We don't ask "How fast is it?" much anymore. We ask "What does it do?"

...laura

Re:Why does this idiot myth continue? (1)

WilliamSChips (793741) | more than 7 years ago | (#17389358)

The myth continues because they tried to do Mac-clones once and it failed for them. Personally, I'm ambivalent on the issue liking neither Mac software nor hardware

Re:Why does this idiot myth continue? (1)

Jerry Rivers (881171) | more than 7 years ago | (#17390002)

"I'm ambivalent on the issue liking neither Mac software nor hardware"

That statement sounds unequivocal and resolute, hardly ambivalent at all.

Re:Why does this idiot myth continue? (4, Insightful)

xero314 (722674) | more than 7 years ago | (#17389390)

Comparing Apple to Microsoft and stating that apple could be competitive in the generic PC OS world, is a little short sighted, and off the mark. One of the aspects that people like about Apple products is that they work, out of the box, 100% of the time. When you turn on a Macintosh, for example, and install the OS (assuming you wanted to install a different version than it came with) you don't have to go searching for drivers and you don't have to worry about hardware compatibility issues. This is because Macs only run on a small subset of possible hardware that has been tested to work with their software.

It would be foolish for Apple to release OS X for generic hardware. OS X has remained stable and secure over the years because of Apples complete control over the hardware. You just can't do that when it is expected to run on any hardware.

Now if they wanted to release an API that could be used to develope software that could then run on any OS that supports the API, that would be another story. Then those that like the stability that comes with a OS hardware package could continue with Mac, and someone else could create an OS for generic hardware that ran the same exact applications (without out the need for seperate and/or conditional compilation).

Re:Why does this idiot myth continue? (1)

Nasarius (593729) | more than 7 years ago | (#17390106)

Now if they wanted to release an API that could be used to develope software that could then run on any OS that supports the API, that would be another story. Then those that like the stability that comes with a OS hardware package could continue with Mac, and someone else could create an OS for generic hardware that ran the same exact applications
You're describing what Qt [trolltech.com] has done for years. Though I suppose ~$3300 is a bit much to pay for your typical Mac shareware developer.

Re:Why does this idiot myth continue? (1)

squiggleslash (241428) | more than 7 years ago | (#17389562)

I think Apple should get it over with and release Mac OS X under the GPL.

Not because this is in their best interests, but merely because it would be the ultimate way to thoroughly annoy their most obnoxious supporters. Those arguing that it is impossible to make more money selling an operating system than selling cheap crap in stylish boxes would find their fears realised, and yet the world would still end up better off.

Also I like Mac OS X, and I want to run it on my Thinkpad.

Re:Why does this idiot myth continue? (1)

IANAAC (692242) | more than 7 years ago | (#17390430)

Also I like Mac OS X, and I want to run it on my Thinkpad.

You can, albeit slow and illegal. Use Maxxuss' tiger image (found all over the place) and vmware.

Like I said, it's slow, but it works.

Re:Why does this idiot myth continue? (4, Interesting)

Pfhreak (662302) | more than 7 years ago | (#17390258)

Yeah, because it sure hurt Microsoft so release an operating system for the PC, and not come out with their own hardware [sarcasm].

That'd be because Microsoft sells their operating system to every hardware vendor who wants to save a buck by not developing their own OS in-house. MS-DOS didn't have a heavily entrenched incumbent OS to compete against, whereas Mac OS X would have to wage the uphill battle against Windows to become a profitable generic-PC OS, meanwhile Apple's hardware sales would suffer.

Very, very, very VERY few people buy Apple primarily because they like the hardware. People buy Apple because they like the software.

Very true. However, just because the software and OS are what are driving Apple's sales, that doesn't mean that that's where they make their money. They make the bulk of their profits on hardware sales, the OS and software are what motivates people to buy said hardware.

When it comes to computers, APPLE IS A SOFTWARE COMPANY. They are NOT a hardware company!

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

Within a year, Apple could potentially be the world dominant software supplier if they would just get a clue.

They wouldn't have a snowball's chance in hell of becoming the dominant software supplier in a million years by supporting Mac OS X on non-Apple hardware. They'd end up going through the same thing they went through 10—15 years ago, when they experimented with Mac clones: all the other companies (who wouldn't have to make up the cost of software R&D and support) would easily undercut the price of Apple's hardware, canniballizing their sales. Since hardware sales are Apple's bread-and-butter, they'd end up hemorrhaging money, and the only way to make up that with licensing fees would be to make those fees prohibitively expensive, making other hardware vendors reluctant to add Mac OS X to their offerings.

Would it be harder to support a lot of different hardware? Of course! So what? They need to stop being cowards and take the plunge.

They're not being cowards, they're being smart. Apple's business model is completely, fundamentally different from Microsoft's. To have a chance at being profitable off OS and software sales, Apple would have to completely change their fundamental business model, only to face an uphill battle against the ultra-entrenched Windows OS.

Re:Why does this idiot myth continue? (1)

IANAAC (692242) | more than 7 years ago | (#17390378)

Would it be harder to support a lot of different hardware? Of course! So what? They need to stop being cowards and take the plunge.
I think it would be more than difficult. While certainly not the case with some hardware manufacturers, I'm willing to bet that many other manufacturers have signed agreements with Microsoft, giving an amount of exculsivity to them.

No proof, of course, but it would seem logical.

OSX Lite for PCs (1)

sottitron (923868) | more than 7 years ago | (#17389062)

I always thought it would be cool if Apple released OSX Lite for PCs. This would nix some of the iLife Apps or cripple them (think iPhoto Elements, no Garage band, no iWeb, and limited iMovie) and would probably not allow any pro apps to run (Final Cut Pro, Logic, Aperture, etc...). Maybe just strip out Quartz Extreme and some of the other core (audio, video, image) services entirely. This way they could make money from selling a $50-$80 OS to all PC owners and they would have a whole new platform for the switch campaign - if you like OS X Lite, check out what full blown OS X on a Mac can do! Plus they'd reap all the benefits from selling through the likes of Dell and HP and it would start to put Windows into check with there being a competing OS option (that comes with the actual support that comes with a consumer facing software vendor, sorry Linux) all through the OEMs. PLUS, they get more hardware support and they let the hardware manufacturers write the drivers for Macs just like they do for Windows... one can dream.

Re:OSX Lite for PCs (2, Insightful)

beelsebob (529313) | more than 7 years ago | (#17389222)

Except that by crippling it, we'll be back to the bad old days of "Don't use MacOS, it's a baby's OS, it can't do everything."

Re:OSX Lite for PCs (1)

sottitron (923868) | more than 7 years ago | (#17389364)

I can agree with this, but Microsoft, ever blazing the trail of innovation [sarcasm], decided to put out a crap-tacular version of Vista called Home Basic. Apple could draw parallels to this and express that full blown OS X is Mac Hardware only. I imagine that OS X Lite would install video tech demos of the stuff not included so that the user is made aware of all the killer features they are missing. And again, its just an idea... And not to knock the old days of Apple, but I had no interest in it whatsoever before OS X. OS 9 and before just bored me to tears and seemed confusing to move around in. I think the windows task bar was better than the switcher, but OS X's Dock puts the taskbar to shame.

Ya Know (1)

fullphaser (939696) | more than 7 years ago | (#17389154)

If I wanted to read every time CNET comes out with a new top 10 list that their employees seem to have the time to put together, than the site that I have in my bookmarks would likely be CNET. But seriously /. if you are going to post every little review they do in their spare time and than proceed to make a top 10 list, than make it it

My favorite... (1)

Enzo1977 (112600) | more than 7 years ago | (#17389200)

My favorite rumor appeared on /. that Apple was to buy Tivo. Oh the absolute ellation at the mere thought. But then months later apple announced that iTV [wikipedia.org] thing.

boring (1)

TheDoctorWho (858166) | more than 7 years ago | (#17389590)

lies, that's really what they are, $ony does the same thing

Miracle of technological Jesus (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17389738)

Turning Aqua [apple.com] into WINE [winehq.com] .

Oh, wait... that's backward.

space fill (1)

bastardblaster (1035388) | more than 7 years ago | (#17389950)

this article is just slow news space filler, just like this comment

Apple offers to buy BeOS (1)

Galley_SimRacer (784344) | more than 7 years ago | (#17390230)

Be Inc. not accepting Apple's $120 million offer was a huge blunder. They ended up selling themselves to Palm for a measly $5 million or so.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>