Maynard Handley (name99.delete@this.name99.org) on September 23, 2013 12:03 pm wrote:
>
> Because if Apple pulls this off without Intel, then Intel is, to some extent, in a world
> of hurt. They've done well over the past ten years on the idea that performance equals
> Intel, that, even if you don't care about Windows, Intel is where you should be.
> Apple showing that that's not really true on the desktop (and by implication for a certain class of servers)

Ahah! Does anyone remember how successful Xserve has been? How about OS X Server?

> puts them back in the Windows ghetto, where the only people who put up with their prices are people who
> have to.

Sure, and what about *Apple*'s prices?

I don't like Windows, but the idea that the Windows ecosystemn is more of a ghetto than the OS X ecosystem is frankly ridiculous. Just look at the respective market shares and third-party supplier ecosystems for a reality check.

> And these things snowball. Once the ecosystem is in place --- the LLVM, the Linux, the bits of
> low-level optimized crypto code, etc etc,

You think Apple would want to sell machines for people to install Linux on, as opposed to machines with an Apple OS? That's completely backwards with their longtime strategy.

Also, people who want a Linux machine will choose a third-party supplier that won't try to impose them a tax for its shiny OS and "industrial design". There are tons of server suppliers out there, and Apple has nothing to differentiate.