Apple's new iMac

[Drake Tungsten]

The EU can't break up the company like the US government can. It can do pretty much anything else though, including fines, requiring the removal of certain software features in Windows, or requiring MS to reveal the source code of it applications. Pretty serious stuff, though not as bad as a breakup would be. If MS refuses to meet the demands, then the EU could ban MS from selling its products in Europe, which would really hurt MS.

[Asher]

Open source will absolutely NEVER happen with Microsoft. It'd ruin their business, it's akin to giving it away for free for them. If the EU ordered that, I guarantee you MS would just withdraw from Europe. The revenue losses from EU will be far less than that of having their source code available globally.

It sounds like all the EU could do is fine the company (not a big deal) or restrict what they do with the software for EU and EU only. So it won't affect me much either way...

[Drake Tungsten]

Here's a good article about it on CNN.com.

http://money.cnn.com/2001/12/19/technology/microsoft_review/

While the EC does not have the power to order a breakup of the company, it could nonetheless impose a harsh remedy should it find Microsoft guilty of violating European antitrust laws.

In addition to stiff fines - which by law could amount to as much as 10 percent of the company's total revenue - the commission could order Microsoft to remove some features from Windows and even force it to reveal the underlying source code of Windows to regulatory scrutiny, Waller said.

Ten percent of revevues is nothing to sneeze at. But you are right about it not affecting Canada. I don't know what the Canadian government thinks about this, but they'll probably just follow America's lead (like they do with everything else).

[Asher]

I'm pretty sure the 10% of the revenue figure is for the EU and EU only.

Or perhaps maybe even only 10% of the revenue for "Microsoft Europe" or whatever. That'd be almost funny.

I don't see how it could legally be possible for the EU to take revenue MS earned from regions like North America...

[Drake Tungsten]

I really don't know what the law says in this instance. Logically, I think that the EU would be limited to Microsoft's European revenues only. However, Microsoft is a multi-national corporation and may be subject to wider ranging sanctions than I am aware of. I don't take International Law until next year, so I'll have to get back to you with a definitive answer. I think MS is more worried about the other sanctions anyway; god knows they have enough cash on hand to handle almost any type of fine.

[Drake Tungsten]

Anyway, let's get this thread back on topic. I really like the new iMac. I wish it had a bigger screen (15" is kinda small) and a G5 in it (yeah right) but otherwise it seems pretty great. If they can get a 1 GHz processor in it, I'll probably pick one up sometime in the next year or two. I'd prefer a G5 PowerMac, but I just can't afford that right now so the iMac seems like my best option. Unless one of you guys wants to sell me a Dell.... come on Steve... uh I meant Asher.

[Asher]

I think the current iMacs are still way overpriced for the technology inside them. You're paying a lot for a rather crappy LCD on a stylish stand.

The hardware inside is about on par with PC speeds of 2 years ago. You can get an AthlonXP system for the same price that's probably 50% faster.

[Drake Tungsten]

Unlike Wiglaf, I readily agree with you that the G4 chips are now outdated. I hope the G5 will remedy this. That being said, I buy computers for different reasons than you. I don't play PC games, so processor speed isn't really that important to me. I buy Macs for the OS, not because I think they are superior technologically. If OS X ran on an AMD processor, I might consider switching. Until that happens, however, I'm going to keep buying from Apple. They are a little overpriced (though it is getting better) but I like the Mac OS enough to pay more on the hardware. Plus those iMacs just look so damn cool!

[korn469]

really why doesn't apple try to come to an agreement with AMD or Intel? if Steve Jobs had of announed that the iMac would have an AthlonXP or a P4 cpu with either 266 or 333 DDR ram at close to the same price i bet there would have been twice as much buzz

[Drake Tungsten]

There was a rumor awhile ago that Apple was pissed off at Motorola for the G4 and were threatening to go to Intel. I don't know if this was ever a serious threat, however. I don't think you'll see an AMD or Intel chip in a Mac for two reasons.

1. Mac OS is optimized for the PPC chip. I'm no expert on this (ask Asher if you want to know the technical stuff) but I think it would be difficult to change the MacOS to run on a different processor. (Do Intel chips even have AltiVec?)

2. Microsoft wouldn't allow it. Microsoft likes to keep Apple around as some token "competition" but they certainly don't want Apple to become too competitive. The higher prices and slower processors of Apple computers effectively keep Apple from ever truly challenging Microsoft in the consumer market. Intel and AMD need Microsoft to survive, so they'll do whatever Bill wants. Even if Intel or AMD was interested, I don't think Apple would do it and risk pissing off Microsoft. Apple can't survive without Microsoft; if Bill cancels all Microsoft software for the Mac (especially Office) you can kiss Apple goodbye.

[Kyle]

i think that this is a last ditch bid for Mac before they either declare bankruptcy or bill gates secretly takes over. seriously, mac is in deep water due to many programs working more efficiently on pc's and macintosh's ****ty customer service.

Apple has between 6 and 9 billion (with a "B") dollars in the bank; they're not going bankrupt.

[Giancarlo]

Now lets get back to that Wiggy/Asher debate:

I am going to have to side with Asher on this one Wiggy, for one reason: Apple shows performance ratings from programs optimized for Macs. It is a fact that the G4 is significantly slower than the Intel and much slower than the AMD. Those tests Apple puts out are as misleading as it comes and the true bull****. Game performance, from the few games out there for mac, is horrible. If you to use a few select graphics programs, optimized for macs, then go with the Mac but that is about it. But if you want a solid system for games and just about everything else go with the AMD series.

In the 80s, when Apple released those older computers, they had a chance to take over the market. But they made on mistake: To not allow companies to build Apple Computers. You know companies like Dell, for example. By not doing so, they basically pulled the rugs underneath themselves. Apple itself was the only one building the computers and that left them with nothing.

[Asher]

Originally posted by Drake Tungsten
1. Mac OS is optimized for the PPC chip. I'm no expert on this (ask Asher if you want to know the technical stuff) but I think it would be difficult to change the MacOS to run on a different processor. (Do Intel chips even have AltiVec?)

It'd be incredibly easy for them to port Mac OS X to the PC. In fact, the kernel (main part of the OS) is freely available for download for the PC under the name 'Darwin'. It acts just like all of the other BSDs, though.

Apple could probably take 2 months and get their (rather small) additions to Mac OS X running fast and stable on PCs. Earlier Mac OSes would be a huge pain to port, though.

2. Microsoft wouldn't allow it. Microsoft likes to keep Apple around as some token "competition" but they certainly don't want Apple to become too competitive. The higher prices and slower processors of Apple computers effectively keep Apple from ever truly challenging Microsoft in the consumer market. Intel and AMD need Microsoft to survive, so they'll do whatever Bill wants. Even if Intel or AMD was interested, I don't think Apple would do it and risk pissing off Microsoft. Apple can't survive without Microsoft; if Bill cancels all Microsoft software for the Mac (especially Office) you can kiss Apple goodbye.

I think this is a large reason.

I think the largest reason is Apple loves to have supreme control over the hardware and the software. Moving over to the PC basically removes all control you had over your hardware. Costs become cheaper, there's tons of suppliers, not just Apple. They're sticking with PowerPC instead of x86 because they enjoy being different, and their whole business model depends on them being different.

[Asher]

Originally posted by Kyle
Apple has between 6 and 9 billion (with a "B") dollars in the bank; they're not going bankrupt.

According to this, Apple only has about 2.1B in Cash, with 5.248B in total assets as of Q3 2001.

[OneFootInTheGrave]

Which is still very very healthy, looking that they have only 1.6 bn debt, and around 5 BN current assets

They are not going down just yet.

But they are second rate company performance wise, however if you wnat a good looking computer that does everything (that normal peolple, unlike us, use) that is plenty of power, plus it looks good whatever anyone says. At least it has style and is easier to use than an average PC (that is at least what they say).

So not for computer enthusiasts, but for grandmoters, picky women and that sort I say. They should sell another 5 million of these I reckon in the next few years.