Could DRM-free Music indicate Mac OS X for PCs??? [Archive]

bartelby

Apr 3, 2007, 08:20 AM

Could this move away from DRM, and Apple's lack of concern of losing iPod sales indicate Apple may license Mac OS X for generic PC hardware? Could this be why Leopard is taking so long?... Have to make drivers for PC hardware?

It's a bit of a jump from getting record labels to drop DRM to licensing the OS that generates massive revenue via hardware sales:rolleyes:

mkrishnan

Apr 3, 2007, 08:21 AM

MacVault

Apr 3, 2007, 08:31 AM

I'm not sure I see the connection at all. The DRM system already exists on Windows in the form of iTunes and Quicktime for Windows. How does dropping the DRM facilitate, suggest, etc, Apple's move to OS X on Windows? Are you inferring that Apple will drop the protection / management scheme on OS X that prevents it from running on non-Apple hardware? Because EMI asked them to sell songs without DRM?

Drum Roll please....
The connection is simple...

Apple is not concerned about declining sales of iPods now that they've told DRM to go to hell - the DRM that locks the songs to play only on an iPod (or computer).

So... Why would they be concerned about declining sales of Mac hardware if they were to tell the hardware lockin in Mac OS X to go to hell..??

yellow

Apr 3, 2007, 08:34 AM

Because iPod sales might end up rollercoastering. Sales of Apple computers would go into the toilet.

MacVault

Apr 3, 2007, 08:38 AM

Scarlet Fever

Apr 3, 2007, 08:42 AM

a456

Apr 3, 2007, 08:44 AM

Apple is not concerned about declining sales of iPods now that they've told DRM to go to hell - the DRM that locks the songs to play only on an iPod (or computer).

I don't think that people buying iPods has as much to do with DRM as the ability of iTunes to sync with iPods. If iTunes synced with other players then Apple might see a drop in sales.

crees!

Apr 3, 2007, 08:46 AM

Drum Roll please....
The connection is simple...

Apple is not concerned about declining sales of iPods now that they've told DRM to go to hell - the DRM that locks the songs to play only on an iPod (or computer).

So... Why would they be concerned about declining sales of Mac hardware if they were to tell the hardware lockin in Mac OS X to go to hell..??

But not so simple. AAC/MP3 is totally different from an OS. If there was never any pressure by any of the EU bureaus I would guarantee you there would still be DRM 10 years from now. The only way Apple would make it's OS available to other manufacturers is if legally they were forced to. Then that goes to say even if that did happen who says they would have to write drivers for every graphics card, mobo, etc...? More of a sure, we'll open up, but we'll only support this subset. Stuff like this is a very slippery slope. Look at all the hassle Windows users go through because some things just DON'T work.

yellow

Apr 3, 2007, 08:48 AM

Why, if Microsoft can make buttloads more $$$ than Apple on software alone, would Apple be worried about losing a few Mac sales to have the chance of also making buttloads of $$$$ - which should outweigh the loss in their hardware sales?.?.?

Damnit, does this dead horse REALLY need to be flogged again?

1) Because Microsoft is WAY out ahead of Mac OS X. Just how much do you think Apple would have to charge for OS X to make up for the loss of hardware sales? $300? $400? $500? Do you think people would really want to spend that cash on OS X to put on their PCs, when they could just stick with the known quantity of XP/Vista?

2) Because Apple currently controls the hardware that OS X is installed on. If they didn't, the current bloat that OS X has would increase near exponentially overnight. XP and Vista are seriously bloated, and that is because Microsoft tries very hard to make their OS able to be installed on just about anything.

3) :apple: :cool:

eji

Apr 3, 2007, 08:54 AM

Even if the iPod side of Apple and the Mac OS side of Apple were more tightly knit, I still think any connection between DRM free music on iTunes and OS X for generic PCs would be weak at best.

clevin

Apr 3, 2007, 08:54 AM

2) Because Apple currently controls the hardware that OS X is installed on. If they didn't the current bloat that OS X has would increase near exponentially overnight. XP and Vista are seriously bloated, and that is because Microsoft tries very hard to make their OS able to be installed on just about anything.

maybe naive, but thats exactly what I imagine for the future of OSX. Linux's eye candy will surpass other OSes soon, and it can actually runs on just (little bit less than windows) about anything. OSX needs to make strategic bold move soon.

povman

Apr 3, 2007, 09:06 AM

No.

The reason Apple's stuff works so flawlessly is because they have control over the hardware and the software. If they were to release OS X for any hardware, they'd get masses of stupid users complaining that something doesn't work because there's no driver for it, or because they forgot to install some bit of hardware, or 'whats BIOS?'.

Currently, I can grab my iBook, take it to an applecenter and have it repaired. For this to happen for any old hardware, the technicians would have to go through a lot more training, they'd have to have a stack of manuals for every type of hardware in existance, sometimes they might not be able to fix it, etc.

Again, No.

Max Payne

Apr 3, 2007, 09:11 AM

No.

They are not related.

yellow

Apr 3, 2007, 09:14 AM

maybe naive, but thats exactly what I imagine for the future of OSX. Linux's eye candy will surpass other OSes soon, and it can actually runs on just (little bit less than windows) about anything. OSX needs to make strategic bold move soon.

There's more to life than Eye Candy. Until the Linux camp has one distro become "THE" distro, the fragmentation of Linux fiefdoms will be it's barrier into mainstreaming the OS. That and non-computer-literate end users need to be protected from the quixotic UNIX-like underbelly at every turn. Pretty much, Linux needs to take some pages from the Mac OS X camp. ;)

nplima

Apr 3, 2007, 09:26 AM

There's more to life than Eye Candy. Until the Linux camp has one distro become "THE" distro, the fragmentation of Linux fiefdoms will be it's barrier into mainstreaming the OS.

Well, instead of "One Linux Distro to conquer them all" all we have on the market today is Windows Vista. I hope it remains as useless as it is now for a long while, so that more people realise it's a ripoff and switch to Mac and Linux camps.
It doesn't matter that much if people choose Mac or a specific variety of Linux, all that matters is that more people will be pushing their friends to use industry standards instead of MS products. In the end, even MS development will improve as they'll spend more time on their products instead of sabotaging backward-compatibility between their own releases. I wish Linux and OS X gained some >5% global market share each.

Yvan256

Apr 3, 2007, 09:28 AM

Chris1127

Apr 3, 2007, 09:34 AM

It's not going to happen for at least as long as Jobs is leading Apple. Remember the quote from Alan Kay he used at MWSF this year?

"People who are really serious about software should make their own hardware."

clevin

Apr 3, 2007, 09:41 AM

There's more to life than Eye Candy. Until the Linux camp has one distro become "THE" distro, the fragmentation of Linux fiefdoms will be it's barrier into mainstreaming the OS. That and non-computer-literate end users need to be protected from the quixotic UNIX-like underbelly at every turn. Pretty much, Linux needs to take some pages from the Mac OS X camp. ;)

Understand your question, but u know what, as I have been following the linux for past several years, briefly, Ubuntu is emerging to be "THE ONE".

and as I can tell, Eye Candy is at least a large (I say 30%, for me personally, its 40%, 50% goto stability, 10% goes to hardware design) portion of OSX's attraction for many windows users who would like to try OSX. (At this stage, I don't really think many windows users really care about Virus and security anymore, since everybody can get a free AV, and windows does run pretty stable.)

It's not going to happen for at least as long as Jobs is leading Apple. Remember the quote from Alan Kay he used at MWSF this year?

"People who are really serious about software should make their own hardware."
I honestly think its PR, if apple ever to free up OSX, he will give us another quote like "PPl who are really seriously about computers should free their OSes and cooperate with the whole hardware industry".

MacVault

Apr 3, 2007, 09:41 AM

Apple doesn't sell computers. Apple also doesn't sell operating systems.

They sell computer systems. Just like in the old days of Amiga, Atari, etc. They make the whole computer, not only part of it.

You won't see Mac OS X for PCs any more than you will see Metroid for non-Nintendo systems. That is, you'll never see that happen unless they don't make their own system/platform anymore.

Yes, and this is too bad - at least for the user/customer. And it's not because I don't like their hardware. There is a lot about Apple's hardware I love. However.. the hardware configurations Apple executives decide will do well for their business plan and their profits does NOT always do well for me as their customer. For example, I #1) want to be a Mac OS X user and #2) use Mac OS X on a <$1000 Bring Your Own Keyboard, Monitor, Mouse tower machine. I think you get the point.... Currently I am at Apple's mercy as far as hardware configurations and price. And this single issue really detracts from Mac OS X's apeal and sexiness.

It's not going to happen for at least as long as Jobs is leading Apple. Remember the quote from Alan Kay he used at MWSF this year?

"People who are really serious about software should make their own hardware."

Let me say that from a user's perspective... Users who are really serious about their software (OS) **NEED** flexibility in hardware configurations and price.

Seems like Apple is the type of company who could come up with an ingenious way to do away with hardware drivers altogether.

Blubbert

Apr 3, 2007, 09:54 AM

Let me say that from a user's perspective... Users who are really serious about their software (OS) **NEED** flexibility in hardware configurations and price.

And all that customizeability is more then available in the Mac Pro. However, not every user needs a Mac Pro, thats why there is a wide selection of iMacs and Mac Mini's available. These systems lack somewhat in customizeability, but if you are serious about your OS and software, why look at any option below the top of the line?

MacVault

Apr 3, 2007, 10:03 AM

And all that customizeability is more then available in the Mac Pro. However, not every user needs a Mac Pro, thats why there is a wide selection of iMacs and Mac Mini's available. These systems lack somewhat in customizeability, but if you are serious about your OS and software, why look at any option below the top of the line?

OMG!...

1) MacPro is way too expensive.
2) MacMini has no room for drives, etc and is overpriced for what it is.
3) I do not want an all-in-one, as in the iMac.
4) There's a huge gap between the MacMini and the MacPro - in more ways than one.

The inability to run Mac OS X on a sub-$1000 tower/minitower machine is a huge drawback to the operating system. It is crippled. No two ways about it.

savar

Apr 3, 2007, 10:05 AM

Could this move away from DRM, and Apple's lack of concern of losing iPod sales indicate Apple may license Mac OS X for generic PC hardware? Could this be why Leopard is taking so long?... Have to make drivers for PC hardware?

This is a non sequitur...what does DRM-free music have to do with licensing their OS? It's not even the same company. EMI is licensing the music without DRM, and you're talking about Apple licensing their OS.

twoodcc

Apr 3, 2007, 10:17 AM

i don't think it'll happen

Eraserhead

Apr 3, 2007, 10:21 AM

Why, if Microsoft can make buttloads more $$$ than Apple on software alone, would Apple be worried about losing a few Mac sales to have the chance of also making buttloads of $$$$ - which should outweigh the loss in their hardware sales?.?.?

Because they don't make a lot more money.
MS's profits (http://www.microsoft.com/msft/reports/ar06/staticversion/10k_fh_fin.html) in 2006 were $12.6 billion, and Apple profit's last quarter (http://www.apple.com/pr/library/2007/01/17results.html) were $1.04 billion, which is $4.16 billion/year.

Basically MS is only making about 3 times more profit than Apple. Yet they have a 90%+ Share of the Office Suite and Operating system market, vs. Apple's 5% share.

Now you can see why Apple doesn't want to licence it's OS, it's not actually that profitable.

MacVault

Apr 3, 2007, 10:21 AM

i don't think it'll happen

Then Apple will never have competition in hardware, thus Apple will have no incentive to push configurations or price. This is a bad thing for Apple's customers. A very bad thing.

killmoms

Apr 3, 2007, 10:21 AM

Move along, it's just MacVault beating his favorite dead horse over and over and over, as usual. Nothing to see here. :rolleyes:

MacVault

Apr 3, 2007, 10:25 AM

Because they don't make a lot more money.
MS's profits (http://www.microsoft.com/msft/reports/ar06/staticversion/10k_fh_fin.html) in 2006 were $12.6 billion, and Apple profit's last quarter (http://www.apple.com/pr/library/2007/01/17results.html) were $1.04 billion, which is $4.16 billion/year.

Basically MS is only making about 3 times more profit than Apple. Yet they have a 90%+ Share of the Office Suite and Operating system market, vs. Apple's 5% share.

Now you can see why Apple doesn't want to licence it's OS, it's not actually that profitable.

Ok, then... I'll have to decide which option to choose...
1) Bend over and take what Apple dictates just so I can use Mac OS X.
2) Switch to Windows and have more hardware options, and bend over and take it from Microsoft.

What an imperfect world :mad: Although, that's what I concluded when it came to DRM. But, whadayaknow... it looks like as of yesterday's Apple/EMI announcement I can finally stop bending over when it comes to digital music purchases!

yellow

Apr 3, 2007, 10:26 AM

Then Apple will never have competition in hardware, thus Apple will have no incentive to push configurations or price. This is a bad thing for Apple's customers. A very bad thing.

Why should anything change since they came into the picture 30+ years ago?

They exist in a market economy, not a business democracy.

Eraserhead

Apr 3, 2007, 10:28 AM

What an imperfect world :mad:

Unfortunately that's life.

dpaanlka

Apr 3, 2007, 10:33 AM

and as I can tell, Eye Candy is at least a large (I say 30%, for me personally, its 40%, 50% goto stability, 10% goes to hardware design) portion of OSX's attraction for many windows users who would like to try OSX.

No, that's just what they think. Once people who are not computer geeks actually try using Linux for any extended length of time (and rest assured I have tested Ubuntu on several people with PCs) they quickly become disillusioned with their inability to, like, do anything.

It fast becomes apparent what benefits Mac OS and Windows have over Linux. Usually in one month's time they're requesting a return to Windows.

Also, Eye Candy isn't that great when the GUI itself is usually pretty ghastly.

clevin

Apr 3, 2007, 12:27 PM

Once people who are not computer geeks actually try using Linux for any extended length of time (and rest assured I have tested Ubuntu on several people with PCs) they quickly become disillusioned with their inability to, like, do anything.

I would advise you doing some research about the topic, statement like that is untrue at best. Unless you were referring to "non computer geeks" who doesn't even know how to explore the menu bar. And in case you haven't done it, try Ubuntu 7.04 for a bit.

And Like I said, Im a person really enjoy eye candy(I know some users don't, ), and Linux's 3D UI is obviously surpass any other OSes, which is very pleasant, and for whoever enjoy eye candy, I would think they will love it as well.

dpaanlka

Apr 3, 2007, 12:31 PM

I would advise you doing some research about the topic, statement like that is untrue at best. Unless you were referring to "non computer geeks" who doesn't even know how to explore the menu bar. And in case you haven't done it, try Ubuntu 7.04 for a bit.

I advise you to stop fooling yourself into believing Linux is as user friendly as Windows and Mac OS. I did plenty of my own primary research - by installing Ubuntu 6 on about a half dozen of my friend's computers, none of which could get a grip with it even after a month or several months. One ended up buying a Mac, the rest went back to Windows.

I can't believe I'm even defending Windows, and I doubt Ubuntu 7 is earth-shatteringly different than Ubuntu 6.

clevin

Apr 3, 2007, 12:43 PM

I advise you to stop fooling yourself into believing Linux is as user friendly as Windows and Mac OS. I did plenty of my own primary research - by installing Ubuntu 6 on about a half dozen of my friend's computers, none of which could get a grip with it even after a month or several months. One ended up buying a Mac, the rest went back to Windows.

I can't believe I'm even defending Windows, and I doubt Ubuntu 7 is earth-shatteringly different than Ubuntu 6.

Im sorry you feel I can't do what you and your friend can't. and Im sorry you use your "doubt" to substitute the reality.

dpaanlka

Apr 3, 2007, 12:52 PM

Im sorry you feel I can't do what you and your friend can't. and Im sorry you use your "doubt" to substitute the reality.

But you aren't an average user. The amount of work and tech-savvyness required to get Linux to do stuff is way over most people's heads, and isn't worth it in the end anyway.

It is not a matter of what I can or cannot do, I should not have to physically be present every day to assist my friends with configuring Linux for every single simple task they want to perform that they could easily accomplish with Windows and Mac OS.

Using Linux is like using a Rube Goldberg Machine (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rube_Goldberg_machine).

longofest

Apr 3, 2007, 01:07 PM

Noticing a bit of a two-way debate going on, in which it got a little heated. Try to keep things cool guys (both of you).

clevin

Apr 3, 2007, 01:10 PM

Noticing a bit of a two-way debate going on, in which it got a little heated. Try to keep things cool guys (both of you).

interesting observation. I think I offered all my opinions, so Im sure I will say nothing further here. since i can't think of anything else constructive, lol, take care

cayley

Apr 3, 2007, 01:26 PM

Because they don't make a lot more money.
MS's profits (http://www.microsoft.com/msft/reports/ar06/staticversion/10k_fh_fin.html) in 2006 were $12.6 billion, and Apple profit's last quarter (http://www.apple.com/pr/library/2007/01/17results.html) were $1.04 billion, which is $4.16 billion/year.

Basically MS is only making about 3 times more profit than Apple. Yet they have a 90%+ Share of the Office Suite and Operating system market, vs. Apple's 5% share.

Now you can see why Apple doesn't want to licence it's OS, it's not actually that profitable.

It's a big mistake to assume that Apple's yearly profit is just it's latest quarterly profit x 4, especially given that that quarter included the holiday shopping season.

Past 4 quarters (billions)
Apple's Net Income: 1.0, 0.54, 0.47, 0.41
Micro's Net Income: 2.6, 3.5, 2.8, 3.0

By this measure, Microsoft is almost 5 times more profitable.

dpaanlka

Apr 3, 2007, 01:29 PM

It's a big mistake to assume that Apple's yearly profit is just it's latest quarterly profit x 4, especially given that that quarter included the holiday shopping season.

Past 4 quarters (billions)
Apple's Net Income: 1.0, 0.54, 0.47, 0.41
Micro's Net Income: 2.6, 3.5, 2.8, 3.0

By this measure, Microsoft is almost 5 times more profitable.

I think his point is that, it's not 20x more profitable, which given it's market share, it should be. I don't know if that's really a valid argument anyways. Apple is a completely different company than Microsoft. Apple is a hardware manufacturer, Microsoft is not.

cayley

Apr 3, 2007, 01:37 PM

I think his point is that, it's not 20x more profitable, which given it's market share, it should be. I don't know if that's really a valid argument anyways. Apple is a completely different company than Microsoft. Apple is a hardware manufacturer, Microsoft is not.

Agreed. And Apple has a literal cash-cow with iPods.

GFLPraxis

Apr 3, 2007, 01:38 PM

Drum Roll please....
The connection is simple...

Apple is not concerned about declining sales of iPods now that they've told DRM to go to hell - the DRM that locks the songs to play only on an iPod (or computer).

So... Why would they be concerned about declining sales of Mac hardware if they were to tell the hardware lockin in Mac OS X to go to hell..??

Steve was asked that question and he said he doesn't see the connection.

90% of music out there is already available DRM-free and the majority of music comes from CD's, not iTunes. The reality is that anyone who wanted DRM-free music could already get it, easily, and conveniently, with a download or walking into a nearby store.

At this point, anyone who wants OS X on a PC can not get it easily or conveniently. Not the same situation.

Also, I don't believe Mac OS X is truly hardware-locked; it's just designed to run on EFI, and they didn't design the OS to run on BIOS. PCs use BIOS, Macs use EFI.

GFLPraxis

Apr 3, 2007, 01:39 PM

maybe naive, but thats exactly what I imagine for the future of OSX. Linux's eye candy will surpass other OSes soon, and it can actually runs on just (little bit less than windows) about anything. OSX needs to make strategic bold move soon.

But in all honestly, Linux is a pain to set up. Driver problems galore.

Apple would sacrifice the type of ease of use they are famous for.

Eraserhead

Apr 3, 2007, 02:21 PM

It's a big mistake to assume that Apple's yearly profit is just it's latest quarterly profit x 4, especially given that that quarter included the holiday shopping season.

Past 4 quarters (billions)
Apple's Net Income: 1.0, 0.54, 0.47, 0.41
Micro's Net Income: 2.6, 3.5, 2.8, 3.0

By this measure, Microsoft is almost 5 times more profitable.

Seeing as Apple's profit is going up as they are growing I thought the last quarter was the best comparison, if you do that quarter for quarter then MS is only 2.6 times bigger :shrug:.

Also remember MS has a cash cow with Windows/Office too.

MacVault

Apr 3, 2007, 02:30 PM

Steve was asked that question and he said he doesn't see the connection.

90% of music out there is already available DRM-free and the majority of music comes from CD's, not iTunes. The reality is that anyone who wanted DRM-free music could already get it, easily, and conveniently, with a download or walking into a nearby store.

At this point, anyone who wants OS X on a PC can not get it easily or conveniently. Not the same situation.

That's sad, because that's the wrong motivation. ie: the "right" reason to have removed DRM from music is because that's what we consumers really want. They should not have done it just because it's sold in unprotected form on CDs.

Also, I don't believe Mac OS X is truly hardware-locked; it's just designed to run on EFI, and they didn't design the OS to run on BIOS. PCs use BIOS, Macs use EFI.

Seems like it would be a lot easier to get Mac OS X to run on PC hardware if it just needs EFI. Seems like somehow I could build an EFI machine or find one from a vendor. EFI is not exclusive to Apple, is it?

j26

Apr 3, 2007, 02:35 PM

It's a big mistake to assume that Apple's yearly profit is just it's latest quarterly profit x 4, especially given that that quarter included the holiday shopping season.

Past 4 quarters (billions)
Apple's Net Income: 1.0, 0.54, 0.47, 0.41
Micro's Net Income: 2.6, 3.5, 2.8, 3.0

By this measure, Microsoft is almost 5 times more profitable.

MS is firing huge amounts of money at Zune and XBox, so I'm sure the profitability of the OS is much higher.

Although to counter that, Apple makes a significant portion of its profits from iPods, so the entire comparison is flawed really.

cayley

Apr 3, 2007, 02:39 PM

Seeing as Apple's profit is going up as they are growing I thought the last quarter was the best comparison, if you do that quarter for quarter then MS is only 2.6 times bigger :shrug:.

Also remember MS has a cash cow with Windows/Office too.

How we choose the numbers definitely can distort views. But given Apple is much, much more consumer oriented than Microsoft, I highly doubt next quarters income will come close to 1 billion.

In any case, dpaanlka is right. These are two very different companies. These broadly stroked comparisons don't really capture what's really happening.