Apple not Windows dominates the 90s

Imagine during the 1990s Macintosh dominated not windows, in this seems a little off track but what if they made some kind of an agreement with Sony, the mini disc becomes the dominant form of hard media replacing compact disc in the latter part of the decade immediately before Digital Media take over at least, Apple has earlier designs which are more like the later Imacs.
 
Well, what is your POD?
First, as long as Apple doesn't let other company sell computers with it's OS, it is imho a wishful thinking to have them take the place of windows.

And even if apple manage to take a large market share, it will then suffer from anti-trust policy. Why do you think Microsoft gave so much to Apple in 1995? And they even sent some of their engineers to help Apple.

Moreover, having Apple dominate the 90s will just make the adoption of Linux by companies faster and even more widespread, as the core architecture is similar, and one is free, while the other...

Finally, when do they dominate? If it is before 1995, Steve Job might not be called back as he had been. This will lead to massive butterfly: no Steve Jobs at Apple might lead to no Ipod, and thus no Iphone. The smartphones will likely be completely different from OTL. I find it even less likely to see Apple dominate post-1995. And then, will Steve Jobs have any incentive to create the Ipod/Iphone?
 
There where Mac clones back in the 90s so it could happen. However Mac os was just too dated by that point. Copland was never finished, BeOS and NeXT acquisition talks happened after Windows 95 ruled the world. You have to either speed things up or Copland is done in a timely manner.
 
Well, what is your POD?
First, as long as Apple doesn't let other company sell computers with it's OS, it is imho a wishful thinking to have them take the place of windows.

And even if apple manage to take a large market share, it will then suffer from anti-trust policy. Why do you think Microsoft gave so much to Apple in 1995? And they even sent some of their engineers to help Apple.

Moreover, having Apple dominate the 90s will just make the adoption of Linux by companies faster and even more widespread, as the core architecture is similar, and one is free, while the other...

Finally, when do they dominate? If it is before 1995, Steve Job might not be called back as he had been. This will lead to massive butterfly: no Steve Jobs at Apple might lead to no Ipod, and thus no Iphone. The smartphones will likely be completely different from OTL. I find it even less likely to see Apple dominate post-1995. And then, will Steve Jobs have any incentive to create the Ipod/Iphone?

Rather than Apple, how about another of Job's babies, NeXT, or more specifically OPENSTEP? The idea of write once, run anywhere could be very attractive to business users or governments, and appearing as it does at the dawn of the WWW (with the very first web server being a NeXT Cube under Tim Berners-Lee's desk at CERN), it might only take a few butterflies to change computing history. Maybe Microsoft take even longer to 'get' the WWW, and get into bed with AOL and Compuserve to a greater extent?
 
@TeaDaemon
Almost certainly too late, businesses are locked into IBM/DOS, so as much as I like that idea (indeed I've used a variant in a timeline, albeit with better conditions to make it work) it needs a 1980s POD to work. Plus Sun & SGI dominate the workstation/server market you're thinking of, NeXT had lots of problems :).


Mac clones are a terrible idea in the 1990s, much too late and they helped badly weaken Apple at the time. Nor would the success of Copland, Star Trek, or one of the many many plans Apple tried do much. Earlier iMac designs are highly unlikely, they already came out pretty much as fast as Jobs and Ives could do it. Plus mid 1990s are way way too late.

Apple ruling the world requires them to go full force on the Apple II (not the Mac) and continue forward with a backwards compatible Apple III I imagine, plus (potentially) licensing an OS before Microsoft really takes off. Disrupting the IBM/MS relationship would also be a huge huge help.


However if Apple was on top they'd suffer many of the same problems as Microsoft did. Short version: corporations are the dumbest, cheapest, and worst customers; corporations are also the main "home" computing market until the late 1990s. Frankly as tough as it was to watch garbage Windows (sniff, oh Amiga) dominate the 1990s it also protected Apple from the forces that would lead to Microsoft's downfall, and Apple was ready/willing/able to take advantage of an expanding consumer market for computers at just the right time.


Minor spoilers for a not yet released timeline: if you like MiniDisc's and a much more varied computing environment in the 1990s then I do believe my upcoming timeline will make you happy, I too love MDs if you check my post history lol.
 
Last edited:

Asami

Banned
Electric Monk, I'm definitely waiting for your TL. Sounds like fun. I've been wanting to do a TL about Apple for awhile.
 

B-29_Bomber

Banned
Want to have at least a more balanced Apple-Microsoft split for the PC market?

You have to change Apple's business model and vision for Apple as a whole.

Apple was much more focused on Hardware, while Microsoft on Software licensing. This led to Apple having a monopoly on what could go into an Apple computer hardware wise. If you want your, for instance Hard Drive, in a Mac you have to go through strict quality control and you have to pay a fee on top of that. That made Macs far more expensive than your average PC, which incentivized people to buy Windows.

Get rid of this and you'd have a far more balanced computer market, but it won't make a mirror of OTL with 90% Apple and 10% Microsoft, because Microsoft had a genius business model.

Say what you will about Bill Gates, he was a genius businessman.
 
Say what you will about Bill Gates, he was a genius businessman.

Not really. Read about the shit they did with IBM to kill OS/2, and it's more acting as a bunch of thugs than anything remotely professional.

Microsoft didn't really even dominate in the 90s, god knows they tried, but there was a lot more market fragmentation in areas that mattered. Like, everyone used Windows for consumer facing stuff, but that had more to do with Microsoft Windows being the cheapest vendor around. Otherwise, you used Lotus Smart Suite, and ran with it, because the big iron in the back room ran some flavor of System V.
 

B-29_Bomber

Banned
Not really. Read about the shit they did with IBM to kill OS/2, and it's more acting as a bunch of thugs than anything remotely professional.

Microsoft didn't really even dominate in the 90s, god knows they tried, but there was a lot more market fragmentation in areas that mattered. Like, everyone used Windows for consumer facing stuff, but that had more to do with Microsoft Windows being the cheapest vendor around. Otherwise, you used Lotus Smart Suite, and ran with it, because the big iron in the back room ran some flavor of System V.

I'm currently posting this post on a computer that is powered by Windows, a Microsoft OS, along with roughly 90% of computer users.

Microsoft obviously did something right.:rolleyes:
 
I'm currently posting this post on a computer that is powered by Windows, a Microsoft OS, along with roughly 90% of computer users.

Microsoft obviously did something right.:rolleyes:

And that was to prop Apple up during United States v. Microsoft Corp. (2001).

Because before that they'd burned a shit ton of bridges, and were pretty close to begin broken up because of illegal business practices.
 
There were Apple II advanced versions in OTL, like the Applie II GS, but they are never going to dominate against the IBM PC standard, because even if momentarily ahead, and Apple makes no missteps, it is still 1 company vs. an entire industry.

If Microsoft had produced a shitty Windows, then somebody else would produce a better GUI eventually, etc.

Even IBM, who started the PC standard, found they couldn't control it (think PS/2 OS/2 in the 80s).

OPENSTEP could not succeed except in a small niche (OTL it did succeed in some tiny niches) in the 90s, because it's hardware requirements were too demanding (e.g. display postscript with 90s CPUs), and it didn't offer a bridge from the PC world.
 

Devvy

Donor
And that was to prop Apple up during United States v. Microsoft Corp. (2001).

Because before that they'd burned a shit ton of bridges, and were pretty close to begin broken up because of illegal business practices.

I'd argue that MS were close to being broken up because they were so successful. While I share many bugbears about Microsoft, no business gets to the position of MS without making enemies and burning bridges; indeed you can't become dominant while being a model citizen. Business is ruthless. Microsoft offered a compelling product, despite it's many flaws, or we wouldn't still be using Windows in such huge numbers.

Apple don't stand much of a chance of matching Microsoft because:
a) they won't license their OS to run on other platforms, unlike Microsoft who licensed it to anyone and everyone.
b) the business market was hugely in to Windows, and those who could afford a computer wanted one which they were accustomed to at work.

The business market is the key to any change; get people accustomed to something at work, and they will generally use it at home. Even today, Microsoft knows it needs to chase the business market with each new release for it's major income; the consumer market is effectively publicity and beta testing.
 
I'd argue that MS were close to being broken up because they were so successful. While I share many bugbears about Microsoft, no business gets to the position of MS without making enemies and burning bridges; indeed you can't become dominant while being a model citizen. Business is ruthless. Microsoft offered a compelling product, despite it's many flaws, or we wouldn't still be using Windows in such huge numbers.

Apple don't stand much of a chance of matching Microsoft because:
a) they won't license their OS to run on other platforms, unlike Microsoft who licensed it to anyone and everyone.
b) the business market was hugely in to Windows, and those who could afford a computer wanted one which they were accustomed to at work.

The business market is the key to any change; get people accustomed to something at work, and they will generally use it at home. Even today, Microsoft knows it needs to chase the business market with each new release for it's major income; the consumer market is effectively publicity and beta testing.

Apple is an engineering and hardware company with an awesome design shop first and foremost. Aside from a couple moments in the 90s when they forgot that, it's what's made the company's products as successful as they are.

That said, Steve Jobs did actually try to license OSX out to Sony for their Vaio line back in the day, but that ended up failing because it happened right as the wintel Vaios really took off.
 
Operating systems are built on a network effect - more users, more apps, means more users, and more apps, etc. This is extraordinary true in business where big enterprise packages like Oracle and SAP require some level of standardization to make the economics work, be it at the processor level or at the operating system level.

Growth in home PCs followed the corporate market. Most adults had their first computing experience at work. When it came time to purchase a computer for the home, they bought what they knew, which was Windows.

For apple to dominate the 90s they would have had to beat IBM in the corporate market and open up their operating system to third party vendors. They also would have probably had to partner with Intel rather than Motorola for processors.
 
Apple is an engineering and hardware company with an awesome design shop first and foremost. Aside from a couple moments in the 90s when they forgot that, it's what's made the company's products as successful as they are.

That said, Steve Jobs did actually try to license OSX out to Sony for their Vaio line back in the day, but that ended up failing because it happened right as the wintel Vaios really took off.

By 1997, Apple was as irrelevant to computing as Blackberry currently is to smartphones. I am not exaggerating in the least. Apple's comeback is due to Steve Jobs' genius and is one of the most amazing business stories ever.
 
Apple's market share was abysmal in comparison to Microsoft's in the 90s.

look at early to mid 90s OS breakdown

in the home there were still plenty of Amigas and Atari ST (and more than a few ST users in music production due to built in midi)

in the UK education was on RISC OS / archimedes as a rule in primary schools and 11-16

System 7 on a Macwas a minority choice

industry was increasingly using windows / NT
 
Top