b.
Right now, Netscape is walking the line between having unique technology and being too proprietary; our story suggests that it's leaning toward openness.
Perhaps Netscape has learned from Apple's negative example. I'm one of those who believe that if Apple had opened up its architecture with the first Macintosh, the history of computing would be different. While Apple has since opened up in some important ways -- by adopting TCP/IP and the PCI bus, for example -- it has still remained largely its own island of technology.
Next was forced out of that posture by its failure as a hardware vendor. Now Apple has finally recognized its limits and found, in Next, a partner that's proven it can deliver a contemporary OS.
Sure, it was a desperation move, and if they can't deliver on time, they're cooked. But it was the right thing -- maybe the only thing -- to do, short of porting the whole project to Intel and becoming a software company. Or having a fire sale.
Good for Apple. But sh
ould users wax Rhapsodic over the future of the Mac OS? With a features checklist that's competitive with those of Windows NT and Unix, an industrial-strength development environment, and enterprise-worthy system hooks, will Next finally answer Apple's corporate critics and open the door to Mac Business?
The most obvious answer is only if it delivers close to 100 percent compatibility with close to 100 percent or better of the performance of Mac applications on today's Mac OS -- and with better stability than today's Mac OS. But I'd also look for three other vital signs. One is success in educating Mac developers in what amounts to an entirely new platform. Second is a compelling applications-server platform. Corporate buyers are unlikely to buy just a desktop OS at this point; even Microsoft is having to converge its desktop OS (Windows 95) with its high-end/server OS (NT). The third sign is a third-party constellation of system, network, and storage management software that exploits NextStep's capabili
ties.
Those goals will not be easily met. After all, on paper Rhapsody doesn't sound startlingly different from Windows NT. And right now it has a tiny stable of developers and applications. Meanwhile, will Apple developers stay the course and remain faithful? That's going to depend on the degree to which Apple shoulders their burdens.
What's at stake here is the continued survival of several advanced technologies. PowerPC processors consistently outperform Intel chips. OpenStep is one of the best development environments out there. The Macintosh may have lost some of its luster in the user-interface department, but it still sets the standard.
In today's Webbed world, close links between content creators, applications developers, and system administrators would be desirable. A successful Rhapsody will contribute to that. And it will give Mac developers an entrée into cross-platform developing, if Next or someone else does a good job of supporting that in the new environment.
Judging by
my e-mail, Apple's die-hard customers tend to see things in terms of vengeance and retaking the market lead from the evil empire in Redmond. That's unrealistic at this point. But the information-technology community does have an interest in seeing a revived Apple, riding on a reborn OS, that would continue to push the envelope for us all.
Mark Schlack, Editor in Chief,
mschlack@bix.com
Apple's Opening Move
