Rhapsody on Intel Advocacy

Apple, Let My OS Go!

By Terry Sikes and Pat Taylor

It wasn't supposed to happen this way. Apple was going to release Rhapsody on PowerMacs, PCs and even sneak it into Windows through the Yellow Box. This was going to be the big challenge to Microsoft.

Rhapsody on Intel was to be our Trojan Horse into the enterprise. We don't want to give it up without a fight. Here's why ...
PCOS X Graphic

Many of you may have heard about Rhapsody, the next generation descendant of both the MacOS and Openstep, which combines a solid Unix core (Mach+BSD) with a great GUI and the richest set of object oriented frameworks available. Sadly, Apple has decided to continue development only on the PowerPC version effectively ending development for the x86 platform after the initial 1998 release. This is especially hard to understand given that the OS already successfully supports x86 and such support was publically announced by Apple.

In response to this decision, a group called Rhapsody on Intel Advocacy was formed. We believe that Apple is committing a grave strategic error by canceling development of Rhapsody for Intel past version 1.0, and restricting MacOS X (the 2.0 successor to Rhapsody) to the Apple Macintosh PowerPC platform. Apple now has a very portable operating system baseline, and they should leverage it to full advantage. Our mission statement is:

"We want Apple to commit to, and deliver its modern operating system, OS X on the PC compatible platform in addition to PowerPC Macintosh."

Since the term Rhapsody no longer applies to Apple's next generation OS past version 1.0, from here on we'll refer to this as PCOS X, the PC Compatible version of MacOS X. There are many *good* reasons for Apple to support PC compatible hardware with PCOS X.

First, it attracts new developers who have PCs already and want to experiment. Once they're exposed to Yellow Box (the excellent set of OO frameworks inherited from NeXT) they'll quickly be hooked. Apple desperately needs more developers and technology advocates. We are not necessarily advocating porting the modernized MacOS procedural APIs (code name "Carbon") to x86. PCOS X would have a rich set of APIs including BSD Unix, POSIX compatibility, Java and the Yellow Box OOP Frameworks, all of which will also be present in MacOS X.

Second, many companies have "PC compatible only" hardware policies. PCOS X allows Apple software solutions to be deployed at those companies. If things work well enough, perhaps eventually Apple hardware purchases would follow. Regardless, PCOS X sales could represent a substantial revenue stream in their own right, with high margins once sufficient volume is reached. 100 million PC compatible computers are projected to be sold this year...you do the math.

Third, PC compatible hardware is open, and can be second-sourced. This is an issue for many companies and government entities. Of course, it also represents a better opportunity for the savvy consumer, since with real competition prices are low...Apple, despite recent efforts, is still higher priced than the PC compatible competition. This loss of hardware sales doesn't have to become a complete loss for Apple if they can still make an OS sale through PCOS X.

Fourth, there is some very robust PC compatible server hardware out there. Apple doesn't have any real presence in the server market. Why not sell OS X for those PC compatible servers, and create a revenue stream that otherwise wouldn't exist? In support of this effort, it's critical that PCOS X retain (at least as installable options) the multiuser and full BSD features of Rhapsody, while adding additional functionality such as SMP, RAID and other enterprise-server class features.

Fifth, keeping PCOS X alive would reassure the development community that the new Apple is indeed "Thinking Different" and that there's a bright future ahead. Too many of the developments at WWDC this year were reminiscent of the "old Apple." The surprise replacement of Display PostScript (DPS) in favour of a PDF-based imaging technology, the subsequent loss of NXHosting, and the sidelining Rhapsody on Intel were enough to make many of those rooting for NeXT technology quite nervous. The super-strong emphasis on modernized versions of the old Mac APIs (code-named Carbon) didn't help the frayed nerves either.

All is not lost though. If there is sufficient developer, VAR, and customer outcry, perhaps we can convince Apple to continue with their PC compatible OS efforts. A strong business case can be made for OS X for PC compatibles. Let's hope Apple can "Think Different" after all...

Please send your feedback supporting PCOS X to Apple leadership. You can also join our mailing list. Thanks for making it this far! ;-)

Rhapsody on Intel Advocacy is not affiliated with Apple Computer. All trademarks are the property of its respective owners.

Visitor number

Hosted by www.Geocities.ws



Apple, Let My OS Go! By Terry Sikes and Pat Taylor It wasn't supposed to happen this way. Apple was going to release Rhapsody on PowerMacs, PCs and even sneak it into Windows through the Yellow Box. This was going to be the big challenge to Microsoft. Rhapsody on Intel was to be our Trojan Horse into the enterprise. We don't want to give it up without a fight. Here's why ...
Many of you may have heard about Rhapsody, the next generation descendant of both the MacOS and Openstep, which combines a solid Unix core (Mach+BSD) with a great GUI and the richest set of object oriented frameworks available. Sadly, Apple has decided to continue development only on the PowerPC version effectively ending development for the x86 platform after the initial 1998 release. This is especially hard to understand given that the OS already successfully supports x86 and such support was publically announced by Apple. In response to this decision, a group called Rhapsody on Intel Advocacy was formed. We believe that Apple is committing a grave strategic error by canceling development of Rhapsody for Intel past version 1.0, and restricting MacOS X (the 2.0 successor to Rhapsody) to the Apple Macintosh PowerPC platform. Apple now has a very portable operating system baseline, and they should leverage it to full advantage. Our mission statement is: "We want Apple to commit to, and deliver its modern operating system, OS X on the PC compatible platform in addition to PowerPC Macintosh." Since the term Rhapsody no longer applies to Apple's next generation OS past version 1.0, from here on we'll refer to this as PCOS X, the PC Compatible version of MacOS X. There are many good reasons for Apple to support PC compatible hardware with PCOS X. First, it attracts new developers who have PCs already and want to experiment. Once they're exposed to Yellow Box (the excellent set of OO frameworks inherited from NeXT) they'll quickly be hooked. Apple desperately needs more developers and technology advocates. We are not necessarily advocating porting the modernized MacOS procedural APIs (code name "Carbon") to x86. PCOS X would have a rich set of APIs including BSD Unix, POSIX compatibility, Java and the Yellow Box OOP Frameworks, all of which will also be present in MacOS X. Second, many companies have "PC compatible only" hardware policies. PCOS X allows Apple software solutions to be deployed at those companies. If things work well enough, perhaps eventually Apple hardware purchases would follow. Regardless, PCOS X sales could represent a substantial revenue stream in their own right, with high margins once sufficient volume is reached. 100 million PC compatible computers are projected to be sold this year...you do the math. Third, PC compatible hardware is open, and can be second-sourced. This is an issue for many companies and government entities. Of course, it also represents a better opportunity for the savvy consumer, since with real competition prices are low...Apple, despite recent efforts, is still higher priced than the PC compatible competition. This loss of hardware sales doesn't have to become a complete loss for Apple if they can still make an OS sale through PCOS X. Fourth, there is some very robust PC compatible server hardware out there. Apple doesn't have any real presence in the server market. Why not sell OS X for those PC compatible servers, and create a revenue stream that otherwise wouldn't exist? In support of this effort, it's critical that PCOS X retain (at least as installable options) the multiuser and full BSD features of Rhapsody, while adding additional functionality such as SMP, RAID and other enterprise-server class features. Fifth, keeping PCOS X alive would reassure the development community that the new Apple is indeed "Thinking Different" and that there's a bright future ahead. Too many of the developments at WWDC this year were reminiscent of the "old Apple." The surprise replacement of Display PostScript (DPS) in favour of a PDF-based imaging technology, the subsequent loss of NXHosting, and the sidelining Rhapsody on Intel were enough to make many of those rooting for NeXT technology quite nervous. The super-strong emphasis on modernized versions of the old Mac APIs (code-named Carbon) didn't help the frayed nerves either. All is not lost though. If there is sufficient developer, VAR, and customer outcry, perhaps we can convince Apple to continue with their PC compatible OS efforts. A strong business case can be made for OS X for PC compatibles. Let's hope Apple can "Think Different" after all... Please send your feedback supporting PCOS X to Apple leadership. You can also join our mailing list. Thanks for making it this far! ;-)