I found an interesting article (via MacNN) that discusses the merits of Apple splitting up into a software/OS company and hardware company. The justification appears to be that the OS/software group would be able to develop and sell software for Macs and PCs, while the hardware division would equally be free to create PPC and x86-based machines. PC manufaturers might be more likely to license a x86-OS X if it didn't come from a competing hardware manufacturer, and the hardware company might get some cash from those wanting sleak machines that run Windows.
This all sounds good, but I wonder what the "costs" are. When I say "costs" I don't mean financial costs, but technical and cultural costs. IMO, what makes Macs great is the tight integration between the OS and hardware. If the two were made by different companies, I wonder if they can maintain that level of integration. I also have a feeling that splitting Apple would kill its culture, and turn the two parts into run of the mill PC company and software house. Besides, which company would Steve stick with? Wouldn't Steve's portion of the post-breakup Apple have an unfair advantage? What if the two halves of Apple disagree on something? Couldn't that kill the Mac as a platform? Is it really worth saving Apple if it'll kill the Mac? This sounds an aweful lot like a "bomb the village to save it" argument from someone who only cares about money.
Posted Fri, August 12, 2005 03:12 by Telecharger musique@200.125.28
From: http://membres.lycos.fr/musiquetelecharger
[moderate]