The reason why Oxford's wacky predictions won't happen

At 08 Nov 2007 11:41:38 -0700 Oxford wrote:

> but that was only in july, through only 2 channels in one country.


Correct- July was arguably the iPhone's best month, since it was riding
the media hype, and the number of channels was Apple's choice.

> within 24 hours it will be three countries, (UK and Germany come online
> tomorrow at 6:02pm), that's another 400,000 sales right there, then
> france is later in the month and that's another 300,000. with less than
> 8 channels. 4 Countries.

Let's hope Europe does better with the iPhone than it did for
Disneyworld... ;-)

> for comparison the iPod has over 38,000 channels, sold in 78 countries.
> the Blackberry has less than 3,000 channels, sold in less than 40
> countries. the iPod sells a bit over 136,000 units a day! The
> blackberry is no where close to that.


True- one is an enterprise-class communications device, and the other is
a digital Walkman. I'd call it an apples to oranges comparison , but
that would be unfair to apples and oranges, which have far more in
common...


> Plus you need to understand the iPhone is currently only 1 model, but
> the blackberry has 6-8... so once Apple expands the range of the iPhone
> brand, the Blackberry fades into dust... percentage wise.

Again, the number of models was also Apple's choice. Multiple models
might increase sales, or simply cannibalize each other's. Arguably a
significant percentage of iPhone sales were generated by it's being (in
Jobs' words) "the best iPod ever." There's a good chance that the iPod
Touch will negatively impact future iPhone sales.


> Trust me, this has all been planned out... sell your RIM stock as soon
> as you can.


Why? RIM's future, IMHO, is pretty secure- I expect they'll eventually
transision from a hardware solution to a pure software solution. RIM
software is starting to surface on Nokia and HTC phones, and maybe
someday it'll show up on the iPhone, finally giving the iPhone a "real"
corporate e-mail solution.

---

› See More: The reason why Oxford's wacky predictions won't happen

Snit <[email protected]> wrote:

> "Peter Hayes" <[email protected]> stated in post
> 1i7a4qv.ujwrsckaf94N%[email protected] on 11/8/07 3:04 PM:
>
> >>>>> OS X will never gain major corporate acceptance because it is single
> >>>>> source in both hardware and software.
> >>>>
> >>>> While I understand there is that concern out there is it really much
> >>>> different than the fact that MS is also a single source?
> >>>
> >>> There's more than one OS available for x86 PCs.
> >>
> >> Sure... and the same can be said for Apple's x86 machines. Pretty much,
> >> though, companies use Windows - at least on the desktop.
> >
> > My point is that "OS X will never gain major corporate acceptance
> > because it is single source in both hardware and software." Apple's
> > hardware is irrelevent in this context.
>
> Apple's hardware is irrelevant to a claim about Apple as a single source of
> hardware and software? Er?

Yes, because it can also run Windows.

That's why I specifically claimed that *OS X* won't gain major corporate
acceptance.

> >>>> Heck, I know many companies standardize on all Dells (or whatever) so
> >>>> they end up with a single source for the hardware
> >>>
> >>> If Dell goes bust there's a wide range of companies waiting to fill the
> >>> breach.
> >>
> >> If MS does? In both cases you are tied to a single source for your
> >> primary usage - though in both cases you could run Linux on the
> >> machines (or, with Macs, you could even run Windows).
> >
> > OS X is a single source product.
>
> As is Windows.

Oxford claimed (in the bit you snipped) that "OSX Leopard Server is the
way the world is going to work in the next 2 decades" which is patently
absurd for a number of reasons.

Windows is well established within the corporate environment. For
corporates to switch en masse to OS X they also need to invest in Apple
hardware. This is a double single-source risk and isn't going to happen,
especially when there are Linux based alternatives which will run on a
wide variety of multi-sourced x86 hardware. You can't legally run OS X
on anything other than Apple's hardware.

--

Immunity is better than innoculation.

Peter

"Peter Hayes" <[email protected]> stated in post
1i7a5py.3isfio1ft5mduN%[email protected] on 11/8/07 3:41 PM:

> Snit <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> "Peter Hayes" <[email protected]> stated in post
>> 1i7a4qv.ujwrsckaf94N%[email protected] on 11/8/07 3:04 PM:
>>
>>>>>>> OS X will never gain major corporate acceptance because it is single
>>>>>>> source in both hardware and software.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> While I understand there is that concern out there is it really much
>>>>>> different than the fact that MS is also a single source?
>>>>>
>>>>> There's more than one OS available for x86 PCs.
>>>>
>>>> Sure... and the same can be said for Apple's x86 machines. Pretty much,
>>>> though, companies use Windows - at least on the desktop.
>>>
>>> My point is that "OS X will never gain major corporate acceptance
>>> because it is single source in both hardware and software." Apple's
>>> hardware is irrelevent in this context.
>>
>> Apple's hardware is irrelevant to a claim about Apple as a single source of
>> hardware and software? Er?
>
> Yes, because it can also run Windows.
>
> That's why I specifically claimed that *OS X* won't gain major corporate
> acceptance.

If you are looking at just the OSs then both OS X and Windows are each tied
to a single source. With OS X you are more assured (though not fully) that
your hardware and software will work very, very well together and with
Windows you have more options in hardware, even when - as is common - a
company opts to stick with, say, Dell. Each has advantages.

>>>>>> Heck, I know many companies standardize on all Dells (or whatever) so
>>>>>> they end up with a single source for the hardware
>>>>>
>>>>> If Dell goes bust there's a wide range of companies waiting to fill the
>>>>> breach.
>>>>
>>>> If MS does? In both cases you are tied to a single source for your
>>>> primary usage - though in both cases you could run Linux on the
>>>> machines (or, with Macs, you could even run Windows).
>>>
>>> OS X is a single source product.
>>
>> As is Windows.
>
> Oxford claimed (in the bit you snipped) that "OSX Leopard Server is the
> way the world is going to work in the next 2 decades" which is patently
> absurd for a number of reasons.

Well, yes: at least if interpreted the way he is doing so which is to say
that OS X will gain massive market share. That simply is not likely.

> Windows is well established within the corporate environment. For
> corporates to switch en masse to OS X they also need to invest in Apple
> hardware. This is a double single-source risk

Not really - if OS X does not work for them they can run Linux or Windows.

> and isn't going to happen, especially when there are Linux based alternatives
> which will run on a wide variety of multi-sourced x86 hardware. You can't
> legally run OS X on anything other than Apple's hardware.

Generally when a corporation buys a computer they use Windows (at least for
general purpose machines / desktop machines). This is what the computer
comes with - though they often reinstall via imaging. This is the same idea
for Apple's hardware and software.

Frankly, if Apple could get out the information more about their better ROI
/ TCO that would help them - but in the end they are not going to take the
world by storm and grab 50% plus of the market share. Just not going to
happen - I will be surprised to see them get much above 10% (again).


--
One who makes no mistakes, never makes anything.

Oxford wrote:
> DTC <[email protected]> wrote:
>> You sir, are simply amazing.
>
> thanks! I do understand computing history better than anyone else
> posting here, glad you've finally acknowledged that.

Opps...sorry. My battery died my client's iPhone. I meant to say that,
"You sir, are simply amazingly....stupid"

But then....we all figured that out.

At 08 Nov 2007 15:35:56 -0500 Bob Campbell wrote:

> Besides, the Apple 2 went thru several models in that time frame - 2,
> 2+, 2c, 2e, 2GS. The Commodore 64 is longest lived single model.

Those were the days! Back when 64k was a lot of memory, and it's serial
floppy drive was as fast as my modem (both 300bps!)


> I knew you couldn't admit to being wrong.


How can he be wrong? He changes the parameters of his questions
constantly to fit his desired answer. If you really corner him, the
Apple II will end up being the longest running computer model named after
a fruit...

At 08 Nov 2007 15:58:20 -0600 § wrote:

> Now, the question that everyone would like a answer to...when/if
> will Apple release OS-X for non-Apple hardware? Now that would be
> the M$ killer.

Frankly, if it were that easy, they'd have done it already.

What people seem to forget, while ridiculing Windows for blue-screen
crashes, bugs, and security holes, is how amazingly malleable it is. You
can take pretty much any random pile of PC parts, slap together a system,
and Windows will do it's darndest to sort it all out and install. With
the literally thousands of completely untested configurationsout there,
I'm surprised Windows isn't LESS stable than it is.

Part of the "bulletproof" quality of Mac OSes is the fairly limited
number of base hardware configurations it has to deal with. When
hardware and software all come from a single source, it's easier to
create stability. The firmware in my microwave oven or DVD player, for
example, is pretty bug free.

Todd Allcock <[email protected]> wrote:

> That's the best you could do? Two speculative blog entries posted before
> the launch?
>
> Neither of which, BTW, address syncing your contacts or calendar with an
> Exchange server. Exchange is more than e-mail.
>
> > i proved you wrong again, give it up bob, you are clueless when it
> comes
> > to facts
>
> Actually you've illustrated a basic lack of understanding of what is
> expected of an enterprise device. Here's your mission to prove Bob and
> the rest of us wrong. Setup a free Exchange account at
> live.mail2web.com, and get your iPhone contacts and calendar uploaded to
> it using only your iPhone. Report back with your failure or success, and
> tell us HOW you managed it if you did. That information will be
> invaluable to the Blackberry and/or WinMo users chafing at the bit to
> "trade up" to an iPhone.

The iPhone syncs well with Entourage contacts, calendars, to dos, but
for those still stuck using MS's lower end Outlook product you are out
of luck for awhile.

I feel your pain since it appears you are still trying to struggle along
with Windows in the enterprise. Move up a couple notches on the
productivity scale and you'll be able to join me and the rest of modern
computer / cell phone users.

In February mass "legacy" development for the iPhone can begin, but
before then you are kinda locked out of the future.

Too bad, soooo sad...

-

[email protected] (Peter Hayes) wrote:

> > Apple is ahead of the curve on how things will be done - but that does not
> > mean Apple will gain massive market share over the next 20 years.
>
> OS X will never gain major corporate acceptance because it is single
> source in both hardware and software.

Kinda like Microsoft, how interesting...

At least OSX works on Linux or Apple Hardware and is fully opensource.
MS doesn't work on anything but old school DOS equipment.

-

Oxford <[email protected]> wrote in
news:[email protected]:

> Todd Allcock <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> That's the best you could do? Two speculative blog entries posted
>> before the launch?
>>
>> Neither of which, BTW, address syncing your contacts or calendar with
>> an Exchange server. Exchange is more than e-mail.
>>
>> > i proved you wrong again, give it up bob, you are clueless when it
>> comes
>> > to facts
>>
>> Actually you've illustrated a basic lack of understanding of what is
>> expected of an enterprise device. Here's your mission to prove Bob
>> and the rest of us wrong. Setup a free Exchange account at
>> live.mail2web.com, and get your iPhone contacts and calendar uploaded
>> to it using only your iPhone. Report back with your failure or
>> success, and tell us HOW you managed it if you did. That information
>> will be invaluable to the Blackberry and/or WinMo users chafing at
>> the bit to "trade up" to an iPhone.
>
> The iPhone syncs well with Entourage contacts, calendars, to dos,

Who uses those Mickey Mouse applications?


> but
> for those still stuck using MS's lower end Outlook product you are out
> of luck for awhile.

What about those of us using MS's upper end Outlook product?


>
> I feel your pain since it appears you are still trying to struggle
> along with Windows in the enterprise.

Says the moron who doesn't know anything about the subject.

> Move up a couple notches on the
> productivity scale and you'll be able to join me and the rest of
> modern computer / cell phone users.

When did Burger King upgrade their system?

>
> In February mass "legacy" development for the iPhone can begin, but
> before then you are kinda locked out of the future.

Nope- I have all of the applications I need right on my phone. No need
to wait for a company so far behind the curve.

>
> Too bad, soooo sad...
>
> -
>

Wow- that was mature!

In article
<[email protected]>,
Oxford <[email protected]> wrote:

> At least OSX works on Linux or Apple Hardware

OK, for the record: are you saying that OS X works on "Linux hardware"?

"Bob Campbell" <[email protected]> stated in post
[email protected] on 11/8/07 6:09 PM:

> In article <C358CA21.98392%[email protected]>,
> Snit <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> Overall their support is better than anything Dell or HP offers
>
> Not Enterprise level support.

I never heard Kirk complain. Or Picard.

OK... fair enough. Then again, as their market grows there they will likely
better their support for that market.

>> - with the exception of on-site repairs.
>>
> Which is EVERYTHING for serious corporate deployments.
>
> Like I said, Apple offers nothing in this league.

They offer more than nothing - but perhaps less than you might like.


--
Dear Aunt, let's set so double the killer delete select all

http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...21217782777472

Todd Allcock wrote:
> How can he be wrong? He changes the parameters of his questions
> constantly to fit his desired answer.

You've noticed that too....

On Nov 8, 6:20 pm, Oxford <[email protected]> wrote:
> The iPhone syncs well with Entourage contacts, calendars, to dos, but
> for those still stuck using MS's lower end Outlook product you are out
> of luck for awhile.
*snip*

Alright, Oxtard, let's try again:

1. Who the **** cares about syncing with Entourage via iTunes? That
wasn't being discussed People want over-the-air synchronization with
Exchange like they can get in WinMo and with the Blackberry. You
think I'm gonna go home and dock my iPhone to get my mail and calendar
from Exchange, jackass?
2. LOL! Outlook is lower-end?! Entourage is only now reaching
feature parity with Outlook and it's still being released way after
Outlook 2007. There's no way Entourage, which is essentially the
modern version of Outlook for Mac, is more advanced than Outlook.

What the hell have you been smoking, Oxtard?

"Bob Campbell" <[email protected]> stated in post
[email protected] on 11/8/07 6:37 PM:

> In article <C359062C.98432%[email protected]>,
> Snit <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> "Bob Campbell" <[email protected]> stated in post
>> [email protected] on 11/8/07 6:09 PM:
>>
>>> In article <C358CA21.98392%[email protected]>,
>>> Snit <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Overall their support is better than anything Dell or HP offers
>>>
>>> Not Enterprise level support.
>>
>> I never heard Kirk complain. Or Picard.
>
> Captain Pike from the very first Pilot episode complained very loudly!
> :-) That's why he ended up in the wheelchair - he got zapped by the
> RDF!

That is not cannon and only is mentioned in a novel! Heretic!

>> OK... fair enough. Then again, as their market grows there they will likely
>> better their support for that market.
>>
>>>> - with the exception of on-site repairs.
>>>>
>>> Which is EVERYTHING for serious corporate deployments.
>>>
>>> Like I said, Apple offers nothing in this league.
>>
>> They offer more than nothing - but perhaps less than you might like.
>
> Less than any Enterprise is going to like. 24/7 5 day support
> (midnight Monday morning to midnight Saturday morning) is the minimum
> required to be taken seriously for Enterprise level deployments.
>
> Anything less is simply not Enterprise level support.

I am not sure what Apple offers that group. Contrary to my above claims I
do know they have some on-site support, but I do not know the details.



--
Picture of a tuna milkshake: http://snipurl.com/f34z
Feel free to ask for the recipe.

"Bob Campbell" <[email protected]> stated in post
[email protected] on 11/8/07 7:00 PM:

> In article <C3590905.98440%[email protected]>,
> Snit <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>> Captain Pike from the very first Pilot episode complained very loudly!
>>> :-) That's why he ended up in the wheelchair - he got zapped by the
>>> RDF!
>>
>> That is not cannon and only is mentioned in a novel! Heretic!
>
> Huh? The original Pilot with Captain Pike was made into the 2 part
> episode "The Menagerie" in the first season of the original series. It
> was made into a "flashback" thing with the scenes being transmitted from
> the "forbidden planet" to the ship. Those scenes were the original
> Pilot. They did this mainly because there was so much money spent on
> the first pilot ("The Cage"), that they realized they needed to get
> something out of it.
>
> So Captain Pike became horribly disfigured, so any actor could play him
> in the "new" scenes. Nearly all of the Original Pilot footage was used.
>
> BTW, that pilot was rejected because CBS figured that no one would
> understand it. It *was* pretty complex for the time (1964!), and it
> also ran for like 70 minutes. Cutting it down to 48 minutes or so for
> broadcast in an hour time slot would only make it even more confusing to
> the viewing public of the time.

Um, I was mocking Trekkies... I doubt any Star Trek novel has a word about
about OS X serving the Enterprise well.


--
I don't know the key to success, but the key to failure is to try to please
everyone. -- Bill Cosby