PDA

View Full Version : Should Apple Sell Mac OS X for Beige Boxes?


MacBytes
Jan 15, 2007, 06:05 PM
http://www.macbytes.com/images/bytessig.gif (http://www.macbytes.com)

Category: Apple Software
Link: Should Apple Sell Mac OS X for Beige Boxes? (http://www.macbytes.com/link.php?sid=20070115190523)
Description:: Now that there's a comparable operating system with comparable popularity to Windows out there that's also running on Intel, the media and analysts have come up the arguments that Apple should release the OS for "normal" PCs and they'd make a killing off it. The assumption is that people would buy it up and Apple would make more money on the software sales from people that wouldn't buy a Mac anyway. That's the assumption, but is it true? History speaks to us on this topic.

Posted on MacBytes.com (http://www.macbytes.com)
Approved by Mudbug

calculus
Jan 15, 2007, 06:08 PM
In a word, no.

Dont Hurt Me
Jan 15, 2007, 06:10 PM
Yes, you make a great product sell it.

gauchogolfer
Jan 15, 2007, 06:14 PM
I think the bit about 'comparable popularity to Windows' is a bit of a stretch, eh?

But still, the answer for me is no.

bigandy
Jan 15, 2007, 06:20 PM
never, never, never!

janitorC7
Jan 15, 2007, 06:21 PM
it would not be the Mac os X that we are used to. What makes the MAC and Mac os X so much better is that they are fine tuned to each other, nothing that mac os X does not use is in the Mac (and wow, we get nice small computers). There is nothing that the mac uses that mac os x has (no need for a million pre installed drivers, we get a fast clean OS). I'm sorry but OSX on windows would suck almost as much (not as much, not even close to as much) as windows on a PC.

the cleanness and elegence is why we love macs, why turn X into XP. Its like, if M$ decided to buy DELL and only make Windows for DELL, would windows be a lot better (mb not OS X, but better than it is now?).

becides, do you actually think that apple makes the MAC to sell OS X, NO! They make OS X to sell Mac's, if it was the other way arround then they would not have enables you to run XP on the MAC


$0.02, agree?

cooper

ITASOR
Jan 15, 2007, 06:39 PM
I can agree with that, somewhat. I would personally still buy a Mac for the design, so in turn, I would get the tightly integrated hardware and such. Others that choose to install it on their generic hardware (and maybe install a separate "not Mac" driver kit) get the benefit of running OS X, but will have to hope that their hardware cooperates.

Danksi
Jan 15, 2007, 06:47 PM
Yes, you make a great product sell it.

It's great because it's designed to work with specific hardware, MS Windows fails because it has to 'work' with a huge number of devices out there, well that and it's hardware prompts annoy the hell out of the user.

xUKHCx
Jan 15, 2007, 06:58 PM
I read quite a little while ago before the second to last keynote someone's suggestion, i am sorry i cant remember who you are.

They suggested that after announcing Leopard the one more thing should be Panther for PC's. Which i thoght was a cool idea as Steve said that they had developed every version of OS X for PCs so they wouldn't have to do much to get it out. Plus it would should people how good OS X is and get them to buy a mac to be able to get Tiger/Leopard.

I would consider Panther the first fully usable version of OS X, so can not go further back than that, so maybe at this point in time it is too close to Tiger to be worthwhile. Maybe when Leopards successor is announced this plan would be best placed.

I think this will never happen but is a novel way of releasing OS X to PCs.

dejo
Jan 15, 2007, 07:02 PM
...as Steve said that they had developed every version of OS X for PCs so they wouldn't have to do much to get it out.
He did not say for ALL PCs. In fact, he said they had developed every version of Mac OS X for Intel CPUs. A big difference.

DMann
Jan 15, 2007, 07:16 PM
it would not be the Mac os X that we are used to. What makes the MAC and Mac os X so much better is that they are fine tuned to each other, nothing that mac os X does not use is in the Mac (and wow, we get nice small computers). There is nothing that the mac uses that mac os x has (no need for a million pre installed drivers, we get a fast clean OS). I'm sorry but OSX on windows would suck almost as much (not as much, not even close to as much) as windows on a PC.

the cleanness and elegence is why we love macs, why turn X into XP. Its like, if M$ decided to buy DELL and only make Windows for DELL, would windows be a lot better (mb not OS X, but better than it is now?).

becides, do you actually think that apple makes the MAC to sell OS X, NO! They make OS X to sell Mac's, if it was the other way arround then they would not have enables you to run XP on the MAC


$0.02, agree?

cooper

Would that make an improvement? I think not.

dllavaneras
Jan 15, 2007, 07:36 PM
There's no way you'd get it well integrated with the hardware. I vote no

Dont Hurt Me
Jan 15, 2007, 07:37 PM
If your happy with Microstink running the computer industry then no but if Apple wants to be telling the industry how to do things it needs to break out of its 5% market and it wont ever do that by selling crippled computers or forcing new displays on people. Its hardware line is gimmicky and OSX is what makes a Mac a Mac, not its same as PC guts. That means there is no reason not to market its OS unless it enjoys following Bill Gates. Thats how I see it.:p

mrsebastian
Jan 15, 2007, 10:03 PM
yes and no. yes, because sales would surely be fantastic and my stock will start to really resemble the winning lotto ticket. no, because we'll surely have some the same issues our windows friends have when you don't control the software and the hardware... then again, i'll take the lotto ticket as the stock has already made impressive gains for me :)

BenRoethig
Jan 15, 2007, 10:34 PM
Yes, but with qualifiers. Mac OS X compatible machines should be based on specific intel reference designs with EFI. Old BIOS machines should not be supported. Driver requirements would be equal to or even less than the PPC days. Why? Despite the opinion to the contrary around here, Apple is not some time of ultimate answer to all computer needs. A large chunk of computer users are left out and Apple has shown no desire to expand its horizons. Yes, there are definitely situations where something from Dell or HP is a better fit for the customer's needs than something Apple has and vice versa. Mac OS X is being wasted on a very narrow interpretation of the computer industry.

There's no way you'd get it well integrated with the hardware. I vote no

The hardware is the same. That Apple logo on the front isn't some magic device that makes everything work. It's all drivers.



the cleanness and elegence is why we love macs, why turn X into XP. Its like, if M$ decided to buy DELL and only make Windows for DELL, would windows be a lot better (mb not OS X, but better than it is now?)

No, it wouldn't. Windows' problems from everything being layered on top going back to windows 1.0 which in itself was basically a GUI program on top of DOS. Apple avoided these problems by creating a totally new operating system. You guys talk as if Mac OS X doesn't require drivers or something. It does. The PowerPC version has to support a lot of chipsets. Almost every new Mac release was a custom part that required new drivers.

eric_n_dfw
Jan 15, 2007, 10:38 PM
yes and no. yes, because sales would surely be fantastic and my stock will start to really resemble the winning lotto ticket. no, because we'll surely have some the same issues our windows friends have when you don't control the software and the hardware... then again, i'll take the lotto ticket as the stock has already made impressive gains for me :)

OS X for generic PC's would not sell that well because of the 2nd point you just made. In fact, it would probably cannibalize Apple hardware sales the way the Apple cloners were doing in the 90's. This would drive stock prices down as the market would not like to see a ton of R&D $$$ going to trying to make it compatible with a million different hardware config's when they could have stayed with their "walled garden" approach that is currently making money hand over fist.

The only way this would work would be if PC makers sold "Apple Certified" PC's that used a specific set of hardware that Apple supports. They could also publish a list of such hardware for people to build their own PC's around as well.

Again, though, why would they want to do this when the public is willing to pay them a premium for Apple systems?

Yes, but with qualifiers. Mac OS X compatible machines should be based on specific intel reference designs with EFI. Old BIOS machines should not be supported. Driver requirements would be equal to or even less than the PPC days. Why? Despite the opinion to the contrary around here, Apple is not some time of ultimate answer to all computer needs. A large chunk of computer users are left out and Apple has shown no desire to expand its horizons. Yes, there are definitely situations where something from Dell or HP is a better fit for the customer's needs than something Apple has and vice versa. Mac OS X is being wasted on a very narrow interpretation of the computer industry.
When/if Apple's profits start to wane do to this I think we'll start to see more hardware options being offered to start chipping away at niches that Dell or HP fit right now. On the budget end that could mean mid-towers and on the high end they could start doing more server class machines.

BenRoethig
Jan 15, 2007, 11:03 PM
When/if Apple's profits start to wane do to this I think we'll start to see more hardware options being offered to start chipping away at niches that Dell or HP fit right now. On the budget end that could mean mid-towers and on the high end they could start doing more server class machines.

By then it will be too late. Apple has a company is doing very well. The Mac as a platform is still very much in the danger area. The professional creative areas are very viable for the Mac. Unfortunately, the same cannot be said about the consumer ranks.

mrkramer
Jan 15, 2007, 11:07 PM
No it would make OS X start to have problems with hardware compatibility. The only way it may be good is if people pirating OS X to install it on PCs ever becoms a problem.

dejo
Jan 15, 2007, 11:14 PM
By then it will be too late. Apple has a company is doing very well. The Mac as a platform is still very much in the danger area. The professional creative areas are very viable for the Mac. Unfortunately, the same cannot be said about the consumer ranks.
Macs are selling as well as ever and over half of them are being bought by people new to Macs. Sounds pretty dangerous to me. ;)

BenRoethig
Jan 16, 2007, 12:04 AM
Macs are selling as well as ever and over half of them are being bought by people new to Macs. Sounds pretty dangerous to me. ;)

Macs are 6% of the Market after all the advances. Still way too low.

SkyBell
Jan 16, 2007, 12:06 AM
Whoever says yes should burn in hell.:) (Or at least ban them)

Teh Don Ditty
Jan 16, 2007, 12:12 AM
Absolutely Not! (Right on Cassie!)

The entire reason you buy anything Apple is because the hardware and software were made/designed to work together. From the finanical side of it though, they would make a killing.

Just say no to OS X on Beige! We'll call it Proposition 666. (Sorry poor attempt at humor)

- The Don Ditty (aka Mike)

mrkramer
Jan 16, 2007, 12:13 AM
By then it will be too late. Apple has a company is doing very well. The Mac as a platform is still very much in the danger area. The professional creative areas are very viable for the Mac. Unfortunately, the same cannot be said about the consumer ranks.

isn't the consumer area where they are growing the most?

BenRoethig
Jan 16, 2007, 12:22 AM
isn't the consumer area where they are growing the most?

Most of Apple's gains are in the upper end thin and light notebook category. Macbook and Macbook Pro are selling well. Mac laptops on a stand...err desktops are holding steady.

Absolutely Not! (Right on Cassie!)

The entire reason you buy anything Apple is because the hardware and software were made/designed to work together. From the finanical side of it though, they would make a killing.

Just say no to OS X on Beige! We'll call it Proposition 666. (Sorry poor attempt at humor)

- The Don Ditty (aka Mike)

I buy them because they do the same job better. Or at least they used to.

RacerX
Jan 16, 2007, 04:22 AM
As I have pointed out numerous times on this site, the move would be absolutely foolish on Apple's part. And one who would willingly undercut a profitable business strategy for a strategy that earns less profits and gains nothing shouldn't be in any decision making position.

And considering that this would be akin to throwing away 70% to 80% of one of Apple's most profitable businesses, I would be happy to accept 70% to 80% of the incomes of anyone who would say this is a good idea for Apple. If it is a good idea for Apple, then it should be a good idea for them as well... right?


Here is an odd quote from the article..."Now that there's a comparable operating system with comparable popularity to Windows out there that's also running on Intel, the media and analysts have come up the arguments that Apple should release the OS for "normal" PCs and they'd make a killing off it."So unless most computer media and analysts are stupid (and I'm not necessarily saying that they aren't), this statement of their motivations must be false. Which brings up the question of what their real motivations for wanting to see this would be.

Actually, that is an easy one to answer... they want to see blood.

They aren't suggesting Apple do this because it is a good idea for Apple, they want to see Apple and Microsoft pitted against each other. And they don't care who wins either, as long as someone loses, and loses badly. They want two companies to beat up on each other so they can report about it... so that their is news for them to give to their readers.

Actually, this is the same reason so much of the computer media and analysts are so focused on the Mac platform and malicious software attacks. The subject is old news on the PC platform, so if they can help to make it a subject for the Mac community, then they can dust off and rehash all the things they have said about malicious software in the PC community... and who doesn't want to make easy money that way?

The worst enemy that we in the Mac community face are the computer media and analysts. They need us to have problems so that we can go looking to them for coverage and advice on the subject.

I would point out that not a single writer of malicious software has made any money from the Mac community so far... but with every report of even the possibility of such attacks in our community, the computer media, computer analysts and security companies have made money.

Frankly, the people we should fear are the people who are promoting these types of things in our community. They are actively stirring the waters (be it about pitting Apple against Microsoft, or malicious software on Macs) to give themselves talking points.

It is a scary day when these types of people set their agenda towards making bad news so that they can write about it... and profit from it. :eek:

SpookTheHamster
Jan 16, 2007, 04:51 AM
Remember the clones, people! Remember the clones!

BenRoethig
Jan 16, 2007, 06:29 AM
Remember the clones, people! Remember the clones!

It's a different era with different results. Seeing that I was actually around during the clone days I remember them and what Apple was like. They were overpriced, underspeced, and inflexible in sticking to dying business plan. Apple offered little that was different than the PC world and Power Computing just plain did it better. There was no iMac, Mac Mini, or what have you, they were beige PCs with the Apple logo. Now there is a lot of difference between what Apple makes and what everyone else makes. If you look at Apple and Dell, there is very little overlap between in their main consumer segments.

RacerX
Jan 16, 2007, 08:58 AM
It's a different era with different results. Seeing that I was actually around during the clone days I remember them and what Apple was like. They were overpriced, underspeced, and inflexible in sticking to dying business plan. Apple offered little that was different than the PC world and Power Computing just plain did it better. There was no iMac, Mac Mini, or what have you, they were beige PCs with the Apple logo. Now there is a lot of difference between what Apple makes and what everyone else makes. If you look at Apple and Dell, there is very little overlap between in their main consumer segments.Then you have a very poor memory.

Apple's main problems of that era was the Performa series and over production (something which was fixed when Jobs took over). In those years Apple over produced systems people weren't buying and under produced the systems people really wanted. It was this misguided attempt at second guessing the market that left Apple with massive amounts of inventory that they couldn't sell.

But their professional systems were the top of the line, with nothing in either the PC or clone businesses that could compare. Other than clock speed numbers, Power Computing systems were noticeably inferior systems to those made by Apple. And I still have examples of all of these in my collection today.

Offered little that was different than the PC world? Name a single PC or clone that came with built-in AV ports.

Today, a Power Computing system is at best spare parts. with the only real valuable part being the processor daughter card. On the other hand, the 7300, 7500, 7600, 8500, 8600, 9500 and 9600 series systems by Apple are still great systems. I was retiring Power Computing systems long before Apple systems of the same era with many of my clients.

If you wanted a cheep Mac OS system that had a faster clock rate, you bought a Power Computing system. But most people soon realized that you got what you paid for. Power Computing systems had far more in common with the average PC of that era than any Mac before or since.

Macs are 6% of the Market after all the advances. Still way too low.Based on what?

Computing tools aren't a popularity contest. The only amount of market share that is needed is that which keeps developers making applications. And considering that market share doesn't take into account actual users... it is a bogus measurement anyways.

Here is a news flash for anyone who thinks Apple's market share would increase if they made Mac OS X available for PCs... it wouldn't!

Market share is a measurement of new hardware being sold each quarter. If people buy a PC and put Mac OS X on it, it does nothing at all to help Mac OS X's market share.

And while we are at it, here is another revelation for you... Apple computers have two to three times the life span of PCs. The average PC can expect around 18 months of original use and to find itself in a landfill within 5 years. And those periods are shortening... people have started retiring PCs in less than 12 months now because it is easier to buy a new PC than to clean their old one.

What does this mean for market share... the average PC user will be counted two or three times in between the times that the average Mac user is counted. I haven't been counted in market share since the third quarter of 2000.

And Apple is very much aware of this issue. Basically, their quality has hurt them in this area.

One of the first steps Apple took to fix this issue was to make it harder to upgrade consumer models. If you can't upgrade (or it is expensive to upgrade), then you will be more likely to buy a newer system than try continue on with the old one.

And even that has only helped mildly... the life span of Apple computers still dwarfs that of the average PC.

dejo
Jan 16, 2007, 09:12 AM
And just remember, this article concludes with:
Apple is running fast and high, and the formula is working. While they've made their Intel version, and some have made it work on selected PCs, that's as far as they'll go with it. There's simply no money to be had, historically, competing with Windows on its own ground. Apple will do the smart thing and keep the formula they do have for one very simple reason: it's working like a charm.
So even the article's author agrees with most of the people in this thread.

BenRoethig
Jan 16, 2007, 09:49 AM
Then you have a very poor memory.

Apple's main problems of that era was the Performa series and over production (something which was fixed when Jobs took over). In those years Apple over produced systems people weren't buying and under produced the systems people really wanted. It was this misguided attempt at second guessing the market that left Apple with massive amounts of inventory that they couldn't sell.

But their professional systems were the top of the line, with nothing in either the PC or clone businesses that could compare. Other than clock speed numbers, Power Computing systems were noticeably inferior systems to those made by Apple. And I still have examples of all of these in my collection today.

Offered little that was different than the PC world? Name a single PC or clone that came with built-in AV ports.

Today, a Power Computing system is at best spare parts. with the only real valuable part being the processor daughter card. On the other hand, the 7300, 7500, 7600, 8500, 8600, 9500 and 9600 series systems by Apple are still great systems. I was retiring Power Computing systems long before Apple systems of the same era with many of my clients.

If you wanted a cheep Mac OS system that had a faster clock rate, you bought a Power Computing system. But most people soon realized that you got what you paid for. Power Computing systems had far more in common with the average PC of that era than any Mac before or since.

Apple gave you the machine they wanted you to have at the price they wanted to sell it at. They never moved into a direct BTO sales model until after the clone days were over. Power Computing, however could build you a PowerTower Pro to the specifications you wanted at a much more reasonable price. Apple was years behind the times and inflexible to adapt.

Based on what?

Computing tools aren't a popularity contest. The only amount of market share that is needed is that which keeps developers making applications. And considering that market share doesn't take into account actual users... it is a bogus measurement anyways.

Here is a news flash for anyone who thinks Apple's market share would increase if they made Mac OS X available for PCs... it wouldn't!

Market share is a measurement of new hardware being sold each quarter. If people buy a PC and put Mac OS X on it, it does nothing at all to help Mac OS X's market share.

And while we are at it, here is another revelation for you... Apple computers have two to three times the life span of PCs. The average PC can expect around 18 months of original use and to find itself in a landfill within 5 years. And those periods are shortening... people have started retiring PCs in less than 12 months now because it is easier to buy a new PC than to clean their old one.

What does this mean for market share... the average PC user will be counted two or three times in between the times that the average Mac user is counted. I haven't been counted in market share since the third quarter of 2000.

And Apple is very much aware of this issue. Basically, their quality has hurt them in this area.

One of the first steps Apple took to fix this issue was to make it harder to upgrade consumer models. If you can't upgrade (or it is expensive to upgrade), then you will be more likely to buy a newer system than try continue on with the old one.

And even that has only helped mildly... the life span of Apple computers still dwarfs that of the average PC.

It takes money to develop applications for the Mac and support them. At 94% it is much more viable to create and support applications for the PC. As a result, the ones we get are usually of lower quality and missing features. If you're one who only users the software that comes with your Mac, that's fine. If you use your Mac instead of an iApp content creation studio, this is not so good.

brad.c
Jan 16, 2007, 10:22 AM
Two big reasons I say "NO" to licensing OSX to non-Apple hardware?

1. I don't want Apple to divert any resources away from bringing to market the products I want.

2. I don't want to have to sift through the inevitable plethora of threads about "OSX won't work on my Dell".

Of course these are selfish, short-sighted reasons, but that is my speciality.

a456
Jan 16, 2007, 10:32 AM
In a word, no.

In three words, no, no, no.

SpookTheHamster
Jan 16, 2007, 11:05 AM
As a result, the [applications] we get are usually of lower quality and missing features.

That is a pile of rubbish. At both the consumer and professional levels we have software the likes of which does not exist for PCs, and if it does exist it is often nowhere near as easy to use or well implemented.

BenRoethig
Jan 16, 2007, 11:09 AM
That is a pile of rubbish. At both the consumer and professional levels we have software the likes of which does not exist for PCs, and if it does exist it is often nowhere near as easy to use or well implemented.

Try using any kind of business or financial software on the Mac or the complete lack of a decent productivity suite below the professional level now that Appleworks is gone. The Mac is king of content creation, but a lot of work needs to be done elsewhere.

eric_n_dfw
Jan 16, 2007, 11:15 AM
Try using any kind of business or financial software on the Mac or the complete lack of a decent productivity suite below the professional level now that Appleworks is gone. The Mac is king of content creation, but a lot of work needs to be done elsewhere.

You're correct about financial software, Quicken for Mac sucks and hasn't been feature complete compared to it's Windows version as long as I can remember. (I've read that QuickBooks for Mac is as bad or worse as well) But what part of Microsoft Office 2004 for Mac is lacking?

OT: I was kind of hoping that the Microsoft Mac team would take on porting Money to Mac to give Intuit some sorely needed competition.

calculus
Jan 16, 2007, 11:17 AM
In three words, no, no, no.

I'll raise you another 'no'

Nym
Jan 16, 2007, 11:57 AM
No no no :( do you want to make me sad? Can you imagine what would happen to the solid foundation of OSX if it would wind up in all those PC geek's, tuning, modding, wrecking hands? sheesh, just by thinking about it I feel like throwing up.. :D

Anyway, no way, Mac's are good exactly this way, you pay for quality and integration, hoorray for Apple :) (lots of "ay's")

JHacker
Jan 16, 2007, 12:02 PM
With the prices of Apple computers dropping and being equivalent to that of a PC equal, why should Apple license OSX out? If someone is in the market for the software, then they should buy Apple hardware instead of the hardware of a PC company. It doesn't cost more/much more at all. And with the lifespan of a computer being only a few years it's not like a PC user is "locked in" for 10 years of Windows use.

BenRoethig
Jan 16, 2007, 12:42 PM
You're correct about financial software, Quicken for Mac sucks and hasn't been feature complete compared to it's Windows version as long as I can remember. (I've read that QuickBooks for Mac is as bad or worse as well) But what part of Microsoft Office 2004 for Mac is lacking?

OT: I was kind of hoping that the Microsoft Mac team would take on porting Money to Mac to give Intuit some sorely needed competition.

Office is professional level with a price tag to match. It's also overkill for writing a letter, doing johnny or suzy's homework, or doing a basic spreadsheet.

Lord Blackadder
Jan 16, 2007, 12:46 PM
Answer: No.

Apple's adoption of Intel chipsets further reduces the physical difference between PCs and Macs. OS X is one of the most distinctive things about the Mac these days, so licensing it would be a bad idea from Apple's point of view.

Dont Hurt Me
Jan 16, 2007, 01:19 PM
You guys are missing something and here it is, what good is your OS if there is no software for it? Just look at the gaming situation at the moment. On the Mac it Sucks big nasty raw smelly turds in fact its so bad that people have to run Windblows for newer and modern Games. Apple was FORCED into Boot camp to run Microstink. Think about this long & hard, why? because Apple put itself and market into a little tiny corner. Think Different. You either market that OS or you start selling new Macs with the Windblows operating system. Just the fact that Apple has to have a Boot camp speaks volumes.

calculus
Jan 16, 2007, 01:22 PM
You guys are missing something and here it is, what good is your OS if there is no software for it?

Gosh, what is it I'm running on my macs then? IMO if you want to play games you should get a games console or a pack of cards.

Dont Hurt Me
Jan 16, 2007, 01:23 PM
Gosh, what is it I'm running on my macs then? IMO if you want to play games you should get a games console or a pack of cards.Apple didnt see it that way.

Chef Medeski
Jan 16, 2007, 01:33 PM
I say Apple forms with a couple companies like Sony. You know like minded affiliates. And have close driver support with them to allow OS X to expand its hardware possibilites without severly detering driver nightmare. I mean adding 20 computers is really nothing.

But at the same time when Leopard is sold. The retail version while not saying its for all devices. Say it only works with Apple or Sony products. Actually can be installed on any Intel device. Sure Apple wont supply the drivers, but I'm sure an open source industry will come out that will create drivers for such a thing allowing Apple to not only make many of its users dreams come true but never actually having to support more than 25 machines while allowing it to run on thousands.

It's great because it's designed to work with specific hardware, MS Windows fails because it has to 'work' with a huge number of devices out there, well that and it's hardware prompts annoy the hell out of the user.

No I dont find it great cause it doesn't crash. I fidn it great cause of its software. I never ahd a problem with my XP machine crashing, but the software stunk. Porting OS X would not change it superiority over XP.

SpookTheHamster
Jan 16, 2007, 01:44 PM
Try using any kind of business or financial software on the Mac or the complete lack of a decent productivity suite below the professional level now that Appleworks is gone. The Mac is king of content creation, but a lot of work needs to be done elsewhere.

NeoOffice? Or does software with no price tag not count? Appleworks WAS awful, I'll admit to that.

I've never needed to use financial software, so I'm afraid I can't help you there. The only software I wish we had was some engineering software. I have to keep Windows on my iMac so I can run Inventor, NX and some materials software.

gregorsamsa
Jan 16, 2007, 01:52 PM
I think, yes. There are some hundreds of thousands of people running OS X on PCs already, (on so-called hackintoshes). Most of these users will of course have special technical knowledge far advanced of the average computer user. Imagine how many more PC users, many of whom will never buy a Mac anyway, would buy a legal version of OS X if it was available for PCs!

Personally, I can't see why all the fuss from the "no" camp. I love OS X, but for those of us who can't afford at least a 24" iMac, or are simply not prepared to buy AIOs, PCs, with their much better all round specs, can offer a much better computing option.

Boot Camp is fine, but of little use to most gamers when most consumer Macs are too graphically limited to be able to run the latest PC games. For such people, IMO, one solution could certainly be running OS X on a PC.

Rodimus Prime
Jan 16, 2007, 02:03 PM
well if apple ever wants out of the less than 5-7% market share of the OS they will have to for several reasons
They do not have the production capabilities to make much more than right now and for proof all we have to do is look at the large number of delays that happen on some of there products and how it almost a joke now when it takes weeks to get a new system in. Another reason to back this is the fact that apple is slow at updating their systems and do not keep up with new release by Intel unlike the other manufacturer that are able to do it so at times the apple computers become over price for there power. They are great right after an update in comparing prices but after a new release it degrades at a pretty fast rate.

Right now almost all of apple growth in computers has been in laptops. I for one will NEVER buy an apple desktop they way the currently are. Heck I like building my own Desktops but besides that fact for me to get several of the main things I want out of a mac desktop I have to start in the power mac range and when I go there I am getting rip off. Not because it may or may not be price competitively but because I have to pay a huge premium for a new top of the line CPU. Heck I have to buy a lot of extra stuff I do not care about or do not want and then pay for upgrades on other stuff. Big items I want out of a desktop is upgradibility and that is not something anything less than the power macs offer and until they do I will only buy apple laptops. I would love to have OSX on my desktop but as I pointed out above it is not worth it.
The increased market share of the OS would bring in more software namely games and a lot of specialty software.

Would I like to see apple do it hell yeah. Do I see apple doing it hell no. Would it be a smart move for apple, I don't know. I know it would bring apple head to head with M$ and M$ might not play so nice with them any more. Hell it more than likely would improve both OS quite a bit because they would have head to head competition. I could list draw backs as will. In doing so there would be driver issues but not a huge deal. the biggest is OSX would start getting spy-ware and virus. No OS impossible to compromise, just some are a lot harder than others. I think the increase market share would bring a huge increase in attention to targeting it. That and it would be easier for those people to study because they could install it on there own computers.

Shadow
Jan 16, 2007, 02:13 PM
The entire reason you buy anything Apple is because the hardware and software were made/designed to work together.

What about Linux? Thats stable and works on most PCs.

BenRoethig
Jan 16, 2007, 02:32 PM
With the prices of Apple computers dropping and being equivalent to that of a PC equal, why should Apple license OSX out? If someone is in the market for the software, then they should buy Apple hardware instead of the hardware of a PC company. It doesn't cost more/much more at all. And with the lifespan of a computer being only a few years it's not like a PC user is "locked in" for 10 years of Windows use.

From a hardware standpoint, the world is not as generalized as your think. There are plenty of examples where Mac OS X may be a much better choice than windows, but Apple's hardware isn't all that good of a fit.

Scenario #1:
Let's say you want a laptop as your everyday computer. You would like a larger screen, say 15.4", you're not doing anything really hardcore so, things like a fast dual core CPU or dedicated graphics don't really interest you, but you would like a DVD burner. Your options are the following a Macbook with a smaller screen for $1099, a Macbook Pro for $1999, or a HP 6000T for around $1100. The HP has everything the Macbook has, but has the screen size you want and it also has a DVD burner. Knock another $250 or so off if you only need a 400 series (yonah) Celeron M. You have three options here.
1. Go with the Macbook and change the way you wish to use your computer.
2. Go with the Macbook Pro and spend significantly more than what you wanted to. Things that are taken for granted like consumer financial software or a basic word processing suite are extra driving the price up even more.
3. Buy the HP and be forced to live with windows.
Nine times out of ten the consumer is going to pick option 3. Total Apple sales: $0
BTW, with the exception of the firmware, this machine is compatible with existing intel drivers.

Scenario #2
You're looking for a new desktop. You like to do a little content creation, casual higher end gaming, and use your machine as a PVR. You want a 2.13ghz Core 2 duo, 20" display, 2GB of RAM with the option of more, a decent 256mb graphics card, 2.1 speaker system, ample USB 2.0 ports, some fw400 ports, webcam for chatting, a card reader for your camera, 250gb hard drive, wireless-N, and a DVD burner.

Dell: XPS 410 in that configuration the price is $1824.
Apple iMac with iWork '06 $1828
Pretty competitive right? Not quite, we're missing a couple items.
Add EyeTV hybrid at the Applestore for $150
Price now: ~$1980
There were a couple things we couldn't get at the Apple store, on to newegg.
Notebook DVD burner is too slow.
Macally Firewire optical drive enclosure $55
NEC 18x DVD burner $33
No Card reader and only 3 USB ports.
iRocks card reader with 3-port hub: $25
Logitech Z-4I 2.1 speaker system $70
Total new egg spree: ~ $175
Total system, roughly $2150

At this price, $320 isn't all that big of a deal, so everything is alright? Once again, not exactly. Your expansion options are very limited. There are no expansion slots, no room for a second hard drive, and the RAM is effectively maxed out. You also don't like the fact that everything is attached requiring you to upgrade both the computer and the display at the same time. To pile on a little more here, the video card is a 7900GS, the 24" with 7600GT was an option, but the paying $600 to get better video and a display you really don't need wasn't worth it. You also briefly looked at the MacPro, but it starts at $2150. Once again, unless totally committed to the OS, the Dell is a much better option. Apple is rolling snakeyes again.

Apple could help their cause little by opening up the BTO process for more choices and introducing a 15" Macbook and a Core 2 Duo Mac Pro. They don't seem to be in any hurry to do so. That leads me to believe, they're going to license the OS using intel and EFI, or they're arrogant enough to believe that the users will change to suit them.

You guys are missing something and here it is, what good is your OS if there is no software for it? Just look at the gaming situation at the moment. On the Mac it Sucks big nasty raw smelly turds in fact its so bad that people have to run Windblows for newer and modern Games. Apple was FORCED into Boot camp to run Microstink. Think about this long & hard, why? because Apple put itself and market into a little tiny corner. Think Different. You either market that OS or you start selling new Macs with the Windblows operating system. Just the fact that Apple has to have a Boot camp speaks volumes.

Like most things Apple, they could change that too at little cost to them. A technology exists that will make ports much easier and could even lead to Mac version in box. But, like the PVR situation Steve doesn't like them, so Apple should ignore it.

Sun Baked
Jan 16, 2007, 02:39 PM
Yay, take one of the hottest PC companies in future growth prospects for PC sales, and put a bullet in the head of that portion of the business.

Be a bit different if the PC hardware was mature and a grizzled old crusty section of the company, and worthy of being sold/spun off -- but it isn't and it has the possibility of growing as quick as Apple can expand the depth of the product line.

It's is definitely not a drag on earnings, and switching to a software company model would kill off their PC business before it has a chance to stand on its own.

Teh Don Ditty
Jan 16, 2007, 02:41 PM
I see your point Chris G. By that logic then if you were to take the most up to date linux kernel and all it's support for devices and merge it with the remainder of the components that make up OS X you should be able to install it on any computer without any difficulty.

My point was when you buy an iMac (or any other Apple product), you can use it straight up out of the box without updating this device or that device. It just works. That's the whole point of the Apple experience. You take that away, and Apple doesn't have any leverage. This is the entire reason they are branching out (hence dropping Computer from their name) into other areas (music, phone etc).

I'm still waiting for the day when Linux goes mainstream. They really have made some leaps and bounds. (Again, we're not counting OS X)

BenRoethig
Jan 16, 2007, 02:45 PM
NeoOffice? Or does software with no price tag not count? Appleworks WAS awful, I'll admit to that.

I've never needed to use financial software, so I'm afraid I can't help you there. The only software I wish we had was some engineering software. I have to keep Windows on my iMac so I can run Inventor, NX and some materials software.

NeoOffice has to be downloaded which actually can be a pretty big step when you're talking about a family computer. It's also pretty slow and resource intensive. As for AW, it was pretty good in its Claris days. I thought it was a very nice improvement over works on the PC side. When Steve got back and disbanded Claris, they basically stopped updating it and let it get really long in the tooth before finally dropping it without a real replacement. The replacement costs $80 extra, is geared more for light page layout than writing letters or reports, and has no speadsheet or database functions to speak of.

I see your point Chris G. By that logic then if you were to take the most up to date linux kernel and all it's support for devices and merge it with the remainder of the components that make up OS X you should be able to install it on any computer without any difficulty.

My point was when you buy an iMac (or any other Apple product), you can use it straight up out of the box without updating this device or that device. It just works. That's the whole point of the Apple experience. You take that away, and Apple doesn't have any leverage. This is the entire reason they are branching out (hence dropping Computer from their name) into other areas (music, phone etc).

I'm still waiting for the day when Linux goes mainstream. They really have made some leaps and bounds. (Again, we're not counting OS X)

It may work out of the box, but the question is how well and for how long. The iMac's service life is pretty short when used for prosumer tasks.

Yay, take one of the hottest PC companies in future growth prospects for PC sales, and put a bullet in the head of that portion of the business.

You'd be adding sales to the Mac, not taking away sales from Apple. We're talking about selling Mac OS X to the 90+% who are not going to buy what Apple sells, not closing up shop and selling PCs to Mac users.

Teh Don Ditty
Jan 16, 2007, 03:03 PM
It may work out of the box, but the question is how well and for how long. The iMac's service life is pretty short when used for prosumer tasks.

I'll agree with that statement. If you're just an average joe using the iMac, then you're good for a while. Prosumers are a little left out due to the gap in Apple's lineup (aka missing headless mac. Let's not get into that.) The Mac Pro while stunningly beautiful and powerful, is over priced for a lot of people and some people might not need all that horsepower. Thus leaving the iMac or perhaps a MBP.

Sun Baked
Jan 16, 2007, 03:07 PM
You'd be adding sales to the Mac, not taking away sales from Apple. We're talking about selling Mac OS X to the 90+% who are not going to buy what Apple sells, not closing up shop and selling PCs to Mac users.

Actually the truth is, selling Mac OS X for beige boxes would kill off Mac sales.

Happened during the clone era where people felt purchasing cheap knock-offs was better than paying full price for a Mac.

Cheap PCs versus a $1k Mac is a big hurdle to overcome.

So this would basically eliminate Mac sales, basically should take sales from a ? million a quarter to 100k or less per quarter.

BenRoethig
Jan 16, 2007, 03:19 PM
Actually the truth is, selling Mac OS X for beige boxes would kill off Mac sales.

Happened during the clone era where people felt purchasing cheap knock-offs was better than paying full price for a Mac.

Cheap PCs versus a $1k Mac is a big hurdle to overcome.

So this would basically eliminate Mac sales, basically should take sales from a ? million a quarter to 100k or less per quarter.

Would you buy a cheap PC instead of a Mac? I'm guessing the most you you would reply with something eww PC gross or something like that. Apple has a radical fanbase. The question marks are the ones who are on the fence anyway.

I'll agree with that statement. If you're just an average joe using the iMac, then you're good for a while. Prosumers are a little left out due to the gap in Apple's lineup (aka missing headless mac. Let's not get into that.) The Mac Pro while stunningly beautiful and powerful, is over priced for a lot of people and some people might not need all that horsepower. Thus leaving the iMac or perhaps a MBP.

Hence my signature.

Sun Baked
Jan 16, 2007, 03:27 PM
Would you buy a cheap PC instead of a Mac? I'm guessing the most you you would reply with something eww PC gross or something like that. Apple has a radical fanbase.

And schools, corporate America, etc. have cheap ass bean counters that would just love to dump the all the overpriced Apple boxes once and for all.

Apple might have a radical fanbase, but they left the Macs in droves last time and decimated the Apple hardware business so badly last time it almost killed the company.

This time the company would survive, but the Macs sales would go from their current niche numbers to mom & pop numbers.

People are cheap ... at least historically. ;)

Teh Don Ditty
Jan 16, 2007, 03:32 PM
Touche.

While lurking around MR before joining I realized that the majority of people would like to see the headless mac or as some have called it a mini Mac Pro. It might cut into iMac sales, but if you already have the k/v/m and need something more powerful than a Mac mini and but not as powerful as a Mac Pro you're screwed.

This is how I view Apple's products:

Mac mini - entry level. First time swticher or first computer. (Or for many of us that own the mini along with other toys, something to just play around with)
MacBook - entry level. First time switch or first laptop.
iMac - entry level - prosumerish. Great if you need a monitor
mini Mac Pro - entry levelish (not really, but it can be) - prosumerish
MBP - prosumer. Road warriorish (not in the battery life department, but otherwise that statement holds)
Mac Pro - prosumer/workstation/beast

Stadsport
Jan 16, 2007, 03:41 PM
No.
It would be a terrible business move on Apple's part. Allow me to explain:
It's already possible to put OS X on beige boxes. Prior to buying a MacBook, I had it on my Acer Ferrari 3400 (2ghz AMD Athlon 64, 512mb, 80gb). It wasn't perfect, but it ran. But the OSX86 project leaves something to be desired. Instead of being able to use System Update, you have to wait for the cracked/patched updates to circulate. There's no iSight, two finger scrolling, MagSafe, or anything of the sort. The heat/power management is also pretty poor. And rarely is there a machine that's 100% compatible (my laptop was close, with some video bugs and no ethernet).
However, if it weren't for OSX86, I would never have bought a MacBook. I would never have gotten a chance to try OS X on my own computer, as my own computer, and see how I like it, see how I like the software, etc. Sure, I use it at school, but using it on your own computer versus a school's eMac with no privileges whatsoever are two very different experiences. I eventually grew tired of having to use a hacked version of everything that often didn't work, or worked poorly, and wanted to simply have OS X for my main operating system. So when my laptop broke, I bought a MacBook, and I've loved it since. And believe me, I'm far from being the only person who's done this.
If OS X was officially available for beige boxes, I probably would have just downloaded it via bittorrent, installed it, and never looked back.
So let's compare: Downloading the OS via bittorrent, or buying a $1300 computer. Which one gets Apple more money?

Besides, the hardware/OS integration is one of the best parts about Macs. Why ruin that?

BenRoethig
Jan 16, 2007, 03:53 PM
Touche.

While lurking around MR before joining I realized that the majority of people would like to see the headless mac or as some have called it a mini Mac Pro. It might cut into iMac sales, but if you already have the k/v/m and need something more powerful than a Mac mini and but not as powerful as a Mac Pro you're screwed.

This is how I view Apple's products:

Mac mini - entry level. First time swticher or first computer. (Or for many of us that own the mini along with other toys, something to just play around with)
MacBook - entry level. First time switch or first laptop.
iMac - entry level - prosumerish. Great if you need a monitor
mini Mac Pro - entry levelish (not really, but it can be) - prosumerish
MBP - prosumer. Road warriorish (not in the battery life department, but otherwise that statement holds)
Mac Pro - prosumer/workstation/beast

I'd say the Macbook is more an entry level ultra portable.

Teh Don Ditty
Jan 16, 2007, 03:56 PM
Shhhh don't say that, the people that are waiting for 12" inch MB or MBP might get upset! (Though that would probably be a sick little laptop)

eluk
Jan 16, 2007, 04:17 PM
Absolutely not. It would become too loose and therefore a middling machine. This would devalue the Mac experience and take the name down with it.

eric_n_dfw
Jan 16, 2007, 05:08 PM
Office is professional level with a price tag to match. It's also overkill for writing a letter, doing johnny or suzy's homework, or doing a basic spreadsheet.

That's what Office Student and Teacher Edition was invented for.

Want cheaper? http://docs.google.com/ works surprisingly well, is free and requires nothing to be installed.

RacerX
Jan 16, 2007, 05:59 PM
You'd be adding sales to the Mac, not taking away sales from Apple. We're talking about selling Mac OS X to the 90+% who are not going to buy what Apple sells, not closing up shop and selling PCs to Mac users.Well, you've proven you don't understand market share anyways, so it is understandable that you wouldn't get this aspect either.

Most people understand that for every lost sale of a Mac due to someone buying Mac OS X for PCs Apple would have to sell 4 to 8 copies of Mac OS X to make up the difference in profits.

Any fool that would start selling a product that both makes less money for their company and would severely undercut one of the company's biggest money makers deserves to have their company fail.

Basically, there is no logical or mathematical way of spinning this to be a good idea for anyone... at least not for anyone in the Mac community. You sound like you are more of a PC user than a Mac user, so if Apple fails here, no skin off your nose.

Apple gave you the machine they wanted you to have at the price they wanted to sell it at. They never moved into a direct BTO sales model until after the clone days were over. Power Computing, however could build you a PowerTower Pro to the specifications you wanted at a much more reasonable price. Apple was years behind the times and inflexible to adapt.Apple doesn't do that any more now than they did back then.

By building BTO systems, you are extending the life of a system. A BTO system has to be upgradable from the base system... which means you could just buy the base system and upgrade it on your own, later on when you needed to. That is the main killer of Apple market share (again, you don't seem to comprehend what market share actually is, so I doubt you'll understand this any better now then you did yesterday).

It takes money to develop applications for the Mac and support them. At 94% it is much more viable to create and support applications for the PC. As a result, the ones we get are usually of lower quality and missing features. If you're one who only users the software that comes with your Mac, that's fine. If you use your Mac instead of an iApp content creation studio, this is not so good.I hardly use any Apple applications. And most of the ones I use, I used before Apple owned them.

Apple apps that I use... TextEdit
iTunes
Preview
Mail
Quicktime ProAnd the reason I use Macs is that the applications for Macs are better than similar ones for any other platform.

Do you know any Mac software developers... personally? I do.

6% may not seem viable to port a PC app to the Mac, but considering that PC apps generally have PC design flaws, I'd say that is a good thing. The best apps for PCs were apps that started on the Mac to begin with.

Need examples? You would, so let start the list. Microsoft Excel
Adobe Illustrator
Adobe Photoshop
Adobe Premiere
Aldus Freehand
Aldus PageMaker
QuarkXPress
FileMaker ProAll started out as Mac apps first.

I'm guessing that you are a Windows user... and from what you've said so far, you may have tried Macs back in the mid 90's but moved quickly to Windows. So given that, your advice for what Apple should do is only good advice for you as a buyer of computers, not for Apple... and absolutely not for the long term health of the Mac community.

You want cheep stuff from Apple. Fine. Just stop trying to sell that as a winning business strategy for Apple, cause that is your motivation. If you get your cheep toys now and Apple goes under later, you'll just move to PCs and not care.

No one who cares about the Mac community would talk the way you do, and your advice has been duly noted (seeing as it is the same advice given by the computer media and analysts who also couldn't care less if Apple goes under).

mikeinternet
Jan 16, 2007, 06:10 PM
if apple eventually did this. when they grow more of course. i believe it could kill windows.

but would that be good? would it be in there interest to spread osx? money from os sales could make up for the hurt hardware sales. and there would still be a market for people who want the (way cooler) made by apple for apple computers.

so i'd say as a company this could be their "final solution". however! is this good for us? will this hurt the mac quality that we love about them? or will it build up apple allowing them to bring us even more great products???

big questions. only time will tell.

Rodimus Prime
Jan 16, 2007, 06:17 PM
if apple eventually did this. when they grow more of course. i believe it could kill windows.

but would that be good? would it be in there interest to spread osx? money from os sales could make up for the hurt hardware sales. and there would still be a market for people who want the (way cooler) made by apple for apple computers.

so i'd say as a company this could be their "final solution". however! is this good for us? will this hurt the mac quality that we love about them? or will it build up apple allowing them to bring us even more great products???

big questions. only time will tell.

I do not think that would ever happen. M$ would make sure of that. Apple would do really well in the home computer market but on the business end apple would struggle. One of the biggest weaknesses in the apple OS is the lack of IT control. What I mean by that is the way to prevent things from being change easily prevent access to different location and control what is installed on the computer. Also the lack of having a good quality remote desktop built into the OS will really hurt apple in that department. If that add that stuff in then yeah it could easly make in roads there

Dont Hurt Me
Jan 16, 2007, 06:27 PM
You either lead or you follow, we know whats happening with firewire, we know Macs must run Boot camp, I have said it before, you sell last years version of the OS getting more and more people on the bandwagon. Its easy all the new bells and whistles on that new OS in that new Mac and you sell the old stuff so people can experience it. The fact is the Mac OS is better and it owns 5% market. Why? Because Apple didnt ever sell it unless you bought it with crippleware or a display or you are a Pro user hence 5 %.

zap2
Jan 16, 2007, 06:50 PM
Apple didnt see it that way.

Apple also doesn't see there being room for a low end tower Mac....do you agree with them there?



Console win for gaming, cheaper, better more fun.

eric_n_dfw
Jan 16, 2007, 07:10 PM
I think, yes. There are some hundreds of thousands of people running OS X on PCs already, (on so-called hackintoshes). Most of these users will of course have special technical knowledge far advanced of the average computer user. Imagine how many more PC users, many of whom will never buy a Mac anyway, would buy a legal version of OS X if it was available for PCs!

Hundreds of thousands? Meh! From all the time I spent playing with the OSX86 stuff last year and the posts on wiki's and forums, I'd say the number is more likely in the hundreds. (maybe a thousand, but I'd be surprised)

And if Apple opened up the OS to generic PC's they'd have a much harder time locking out pirates.

macEfan
Jan 16, 2007, 07:19 PM
no, if you shipped on other hardware, then mac OS will have the same problems windows people do... yuck!

BenRoethig
Jan 16, 2007, 08:39 PM
no, if you shipped on other hardware, then mac OS will have the same problems windows people do... yuck!

The Apple logo doesn't have some kind of magical properties that makes everything. A computer running an intel 945 chipset with a HP logo will work exactly the same as a Macbook. That's a decade old stereotype. There are a total of three chipset families in use to day: Intel's in house 900 series, AMD's (formerly ATI) Radeon xpress, and Nvidia's nforce which has versions for each.

Well, you've proven you don't understand market share anyways, so it is understandable that you wouldn't get this aspect either.

Most people understand that for every lost sale of a Mac due to someone buying Mac OS X for PCs Apple would have to sell 4 to 8 copies of Mac OS X to make up the difference in profits.

You are under the assumption that there is some kind of general computer and everyone buys solely based on price. Apple sells hardware, not just because of its operating system but because its smart enough to play in market segments that the mainstream computer companies do not touch. As a result it leaves gaps in more mainstream categories. Mac users are not some kind of evolved version of the average computer user. They are a different breed with different tastes and ideas on what a computer should be. You can't get what Apple offers from Dell or HP. On the flip side, there are things that the Mac platform is lacking. Some of those we had as recently as a couple years back.

I'm guessing that you are a Windows user... and from what you've said so far, you may have tried Macs back in the mid 90's but moved quickly to Windows.

Wrong I have used Macs continuously for the last fifteen years. I also remember when Apple had real desktops and I could actually go to one of three to four stores in town to check out the latest Apple hardware and software. Apps were created specifically for the Mac back then. Now I have to drive three hours to do that

Dont Hurt Me
Jan 16, 2007, 09:09 PM
Apple also doesn't see there being room for a low end tower Mac....do you agree with them there?



Console win for gaming, cheaper, better more fun.Yeah I agree they have no need for a low end tower but they still have a missing product in the middle.

rjwill246
Jan 16, 2007, 10:13 PM
Then you have a very poor memory.

You have nailed it in all your posts. Apple might well sell a few million copies of OSX-- then what??? Every el cheapo computer NOT made by Apple would flourish as the hardware base-- not a good scenario for Apple. Now, one could argue that people would completely dump Windows over time and the Mac OS would become the counterpart to Windows and sell billions worth.

Yeah, but then you have the problem of drivers to which a reader above thought would be no problem-- it is indeed a NIGHTMARE!!! Apple's OS needs very little in the way of drivers to work with its own hardware, but on all the beige boxes out there, Apple would need to develop another campus for all the OS variants... this is NOT a good deal when there would be no extra Apple hardware being sold. A massive commitment on Apple's part, for what?? Headaches and tons and tons of criticism for not having the OS work on every bloody conceivable beige box out there. What a frightening thought for Apple and its investors!!!

Indeed, the best scenario I can see-- and one which will take a very long time but is feasible--- is to let Mac OS and Apple hardware keep gaining in the market. Hopefully, there will be a tipping point at which time growth goes from linear to exponential. It is not beyond possible if the right 3rd party applications are released for OS X. But that invites another "problem", which is, Apple would NOT be able to manufacture enough units to meet demand-- then, an alliance with HP, Sony or (choke) Dell and others might be the answer because at the point Apple is a 50 billion a year company and can afford to share the spoils especially as its OS would be equal to Windows in deployment.

But forget going to Fryes and putting the cheapest box together even though many would love to see that... there would be tons of complaints about that limitation but it would not be in Apple's interest to have this fiasco happen. People would - wrongly- criticise Apple for not having a properly working OS and not see where the problem actually lay.

Today, Apple has not had such an influence in the market except for its auspicious start 30 years ago. It was king but then fell: however, crowns have been regained just as kingdoms fall to challengers. The lesson for MS is that it is not going to always be unchallenged and I think MS's recent posturing, the Zune and the decreasing use of Internet Explorer all suggest the bell is tolling, even if distantly.

It won't be an overnight change, for sure, but Apple is sitting in an incredible place right now and it needs to let ITS momentum carry the company forward and not be railroaded into a quick buck scenario that kills it off by canibalisation. I vote NO to insipid yellow!!!

BenRoethig
Jan 17, 2007, 08:15 AM
You have nailed it in all your posts. Apple might well sell a few million copies of OSX-- then what??? Every el cheapo computer NOT made by Apple would flourish as the hardware base-- not a good scenario for Apple. Now, one could argue that people would completely dump Windows over time and the Mac OS would become the counterpart to Windows and sell billions worth.

Yeah, but then you have the problem of drivers to which a reader above thought would be no problem-- it is indeed a NIGHTMARE!!! Apple's OS needs very little in the way of drivers to work with its own hardware, but on all the beige boxes out there, Apple would need to develop another campus for all the OS variants... this is NOT a good deal when there would be no extra Apple hardware being sold. A massive commitment on Apple's part, for what?? Headaches and tons and tons of criticism for not having the OS work on every bloody conceivable beige box out there. What a frightening thought for Apple and its investors!!!

Indeed, the best scenario I can see-- and one which will take a very long time but is feasible--- is to let Mac OS and Apple hardware keep gaining in the market. Hopefully, there will be a tipping point at which time growth goes from linear to exponential. It is not beyond possible if the right 3rd party applications are released for OS X. But that invites another "problem", which is, Apple would NOT be able to manufacture enough units to meet demand-- then, an alliance with HP, Sony or (choke) Dell and others might be the answer because at the point Apple is a 50 billion a year company and can afford to share the spoils especially as its OS would be equal to Windows in deployment.

But forget going to Fryes and putting the cheapest box together even though many would love to see that... there would be tons of complaints about that limitation but it would not be in Apple's interest to have this fiasco happen. People would - wrongly- criticise Apple for not having a properly working OS and not see where the problem actually lay.

Today, Apple has not had such an influence in the market except for its auspicious start 30 years ago. It was king but then fell: however, crowns have been regained just as kingdoms fall to challengers. The lesson for MS is that it is not going to always be unchallenged and I think MS's recent posturing, the Zune and the decreasing use of Internet Explorer all suggest the bell is tolling, even if distantly.

It won't be an overnight change, for sure, but Apple is sitting in an incredible place right now and it needs to let ITS momentum carry the company forward and not be railroaded into a quick buck scenario that kills it off by canibalisation. I vote NO to insipid yellow!!!


How can it be a driver nightmare when they would be using the same drivers? Apple already has support for the 5000 series server platform and the 945 series. They would have to add drivers for 965 and 975. There may be hundreds of PCs out there, but the only real difference is the case and that doesn't need a driver.

In addition, let me put it this way, Apple is BMW. Gateway, HP, and Dell are Chevy, Ford, and Dodge. Apple is better built and more stylish, but much more expensive and not practical for all tasks. Let's say BMW develops a practical hydrogen engine (called say OSX). Are they going to keep it to themselves? Nope. It hurts them more by not licensing it than it does to license it. Not everything would by from them. Instead of making money, they have a vehicle that's harder to support for the average buyer. Open it up, not only are they going to make money off of every vehicle sold with that technology, they're going to pick up more sales for themselves because it's more viable now. Apple's strategy works as long as everything is going well. The problem is not everything goes well all the time. When Apple goes into a recession, they tend to loose a lot of money.

gregorsamsa
Jan 17, 2007, 08:27 AM
Hundreds of thousands? Meh! From all the time I spent playing with the OSX86 stuff last year and the posts on wiki's and forums, I'd say the number is more likely in the hundreds. (maybe a thousand, but I'd be surprised)

And if Apple opened up the OS to generic PC's they'd have a much harder time locking out pirates.

What exactly would be the point of me entering into a debate about this topic & then proceed to post a load of lies, for eg. by talking of 100,000s of hackintosh users if I thought the real figure was only a few 100?

Re Hackintoshes: if you Google, like I did, the Insanely Mac Forum (The Evolution of OSX86), you'll find there are currently 64,070 members. There are of course other Hackintosh forums. I think it's realistic to assume that, in addition to these known members, there will be a further significant number of unresigstered users (ie. lurkers). So, IMO, to say that there are "some hundreds of thousands of people running OS X on PCs already" is by no means an unreasonable estimate.

These are people who refuse to buy Macs, preferring to run OS X on PCs despite all the attendant problems. Selling OS X to the millions like these is highly unlikely to cannibalize Mac sales. IMO, it may even have the opposite effect. As the OS X user base increases, surely more software developers would be tempted into tapping into a growing OS X market, in turn attracting even more users to the platform. Later on, some of these are bound to buy new Macs for the Apple quality alone.

IMO, an inevitable, but fairly limited amount of piracy is no reason to ignore the vast potential market of PC users who'd happily buy legit copies of OS X.

Keirdre
Jan 17, 2007, 08:39 AM
There's no way you'd get it well integrated with the hardware. I vote no

Thus tarnishing the excellent reputation that Apple have worked hard to build.

Nym
Jan 17, 2007, 08:57 AM
A little bit of piracy?
in 1 million copies sold to PC users I can almost bet that 700,000 OSX's copies would
be illegal.

It would be a lose-lose situation for Apple, they would sell less Mac's because one could get OSX and a high end machine for a way cheaper price, (why buy a Mac??) and they would lose on OSX sales since piracy would destroy Apple's solid fanbase that "usually" buys legit copies of the OS.
Also, if OSX were to be released to the general population, I can imagine that spyware, virus, trojans and whatever crap Windows users have to put up with would appear within a week after it's release.

eric_n_dfw
Jan 17, 2007, 11:07 AM
What exactly would be the point of me entering into a debate about this topic & then proceed to post a load of lies, for eg. by talking of 100,000s of hackintosh users if I thought the real figure was only a few 100?

Re Hackintoshes: if you Google, like I did, the Insanely Mac Forum (The Evolution of OSX86), you'll find there are currently 64,070 members. There are of course other Hackintosh forums. I think it's realistic to assume that, in addition to these known members, there will be a further significant number of unresigstered users (ie. lurkers). So, IMO, to say that there are "some hundreds of thousands of people running OS X on PCs already" is by no means an unreasonable estimate.

These are people who refuse to buy Macs, preferring to run OS X on PCs despite all the attendant problems. Selling OS X to the millions like these is highly unlikely to cannibalize Mac sales. IMO, it may even have the opposite effect. As the OS X user base increases, surely more software developers would be tempted into tapping into a growing OS X market, in turn attracting even more users to the platform. Later on, some of these are bound to buy new Macs for the Apple quality alone.

IMO, an inevitable, but fairly limited amount of piracy is no reason to ignore the vast potential market of PC users who'd happily buy legit copies of OS X.

I'm a member of OSX86 forum - I've been inactive for months. I'd bet the majority of those 64k members are in the same boat.

I'd love to be able to run OSX on commodity hardware from a purely selfish standpoint to save a buck too, but the lack of support for the wireless chip sets, various sound cards, video cards, etc... made me give it up. The whole point my of using a Mac is the "it just works" factor. I don't have the time or patience to tinker to get it running well. Maybe things have gotten better in the past few months, but I still seriously doubt there are that many people willing to put up with the fragility OSX86 was in mid-2006 nor willing to put together a system specifically to run OSX when Apple will always be posting updates to try to break those setups. Hell, Linix distro's now-a-days require less tinkering than that.

Let's say you're right - maybe there are 100k people putting up with OSX86 shortcomings, and maybe those people will never buy a Mac anyway
either, but if Apple were to start selling it to them there would still be a vibrant piracy market for it and Apple would have to implement the same kind of draconian anti-piracy measures that they do for app's like Final Cut Studio or (gasp) like Microsoft's Windows' activation crap.

The main point of the article still stands: that Apple is making buckets of money selling hardware. OS X is the carrot to get people to buy that hardware. (as well as iLife and other software suites) Apple isn't going to endanger their core business to satisfy a bunch of geeks desires.

FWIW: I know it worked for me; I was a life long Apple hater (C64, Amiga and OS/2 user) until they bought NeXT - having played with developing for OPENSTEP a couple years earlier I was immediately interested but soon pissed off that they scrapped the "Yellow Box" concept. I bought my first Mac (a G3 400) due to a combination of being sick of Windows98 problems and the promise of getting to run OS X on it in the near future. This was the first new, pre-built "pc" I'd paid for since the Amiga, but I soon found out that the "it just works" factor made it worth the money. I know of at least a half dozen software engineer colleagues at my workplace alone who have done the same in the past few years.

BenRoethig
Jan 17, 2007, 12:00 PM
A little bit of piracy?
in 1 million copies sold to PC users I can almost bet that 700,000 OSX's copies would be illegal..

If it was only to OEM partners using the EFI firmware and intel chipsets all would be legal, at least until 10.6 enters the fray.

Dane D.
Jan 17, 2007, 12:24 PM
No, No, No, No
It would ruin Apple as a company. Their reputation for quality products would nose-dive because people would be trying to get it to run on POS beige boxes.

Rodimus Prime
Jan 17, 2007, 01:33 PM
A little bit of piracy?
in 1 million copies sold to PC users I can almost bet that 700,000 OSX's copies would
be illegal.

It would be a lose-lose situation for Apple, they would sell less Mac's because one could get OSX and a high end machine for a way cheaper price, (why buy a Mac??) and they would lose on OSX sales since piracy would destroy Apple's solid fanbase that "usually" buys legit copies of the OS.
Also, if OSX were to be released to the general population, I can imagine that spyware, virus, trojans and whatever crap Windows users have to put up with would appear within a week after it's release.


wow some people think all PC users just pirated software. Hell I would gladly take that bet hell I willing to put a few grand on the line on it.
Piracy has historically been around 15-20% of software. and oddly going out side of that range is never really a good thing because going below general means you antipiraticy is way to hard and causing more problems than it is solving and going above it general means you software is over priced and/or you anti pirating it not good enough.

But really it would not destroy the fan base. I think it is rather sad and disheartening to read post like this because that just shows that a lot of Mac users think all PC users are crap and just cause more resentment and proof of the mac annoying better than you attitude (not a good quality ever)

BlackMax
Jan 17, 2007, 01:50 PM
No. I believe it would be a bad move for Apple. OS X works well on Macs because Apple can control the hardware. If Apple were to open OS X up to the PC world then Apple would have to support an exponentially larger hardware base, which could potentially open the OS up to new bugs and possibly even new security vulnerabilities. :eek:

Also, why would Apple want to do something that could possibly persuade potential hardware buyers to go with a PC and OSX instead of a PowerBook, iMac or Power Mac?

gregorsamsa
Jan 17, 2007, 01:55 PM
I'm a member of OSX86 forum - I've been inactive for months. I'd bet the majority of those 64k members are in the same boat.

I'd love to be able to run OSX on commodity hardware from a purely selfish standpoint to save a buck too, but the lack of support for the wireless chip sets, various sound cards, video cards, etc... made me give it up. The whole point my of using a Mac is the "it just works" factor. I don't have the time or patience to tinker to get it running well. Maybe things have gotten better in the past few months, but I still seriously doubt there are that many people willing to put up with the fragility OSX86 was in mid-2006 nor willing to put together a system specifically to run OSX when Apple will always be posting updates to try to break those setups. Hell, Linix distro's now-a-days require less tinkering than that.

Let's say you're right - maybe there are 100k people putting up with OSX86 shortcomings, and maybe those people will never buy a Mac anyway
either, but if Apple were to start selling it to them there would still be a vibrant piracy market for it and Apple would have to implement the same kind of draconian anti-piracy measures that they do for app's like Final Cut Studio or (gasp) like Microsoft's Windows' activation crap.

The main point of the article still stands: that Apple is making buckets of money selling hardware. OS X is the carrot to get people to buy that hardware. (as well as iLife and other software suites) Apple isn't going to endanger their core business to satisfy a bunch of geeks desires.

FWIW: I know it worked for me; I was a life long Apple hater (C64, Amiga and OS/2 user) until they bought NeXT - having played with developing for OPENSTEP a couple years earlier I was immediately interested but soon pissed off that they scrapped the "Yellow Box" concept. I bought my first Mac (a G3 400) due to a combination of being sick of Windows98 problems and the promise of getting to run OS X on it in the near future. This was the first new, pre-built "pc" I'd paid for since the Amiga, but I soon found out that the "it just works" factor made it worth the money. I know of at least a half dozen software engineer colleagues at my workplace alone who have done the same in the past few years.

I accept your point about how it's unfair of me to assume that anything like the said number of hackintosh forum members are currently active. However, many people who visit forums never actually register, so the exact figures are always difficult to agree on.

The impression I get from visiting today's hackintosh forums is that at least some users, particularly those with powerful Intel PCs, are getting an acceptable performance from running OS X on PCs, despite some inevitable problems that they have to put up with. Also, (& something which I didn't fully appreciate when I posted earlier), quite a few who started out using OS X on PCs, went on to buy a Mac later. - Others simply refuse to buy a Mac on principle as, according to their reasoning, they see Steve Jobs & Apple as being little better than Bill Gates & MS!

Despite all that I've heard here about how releasing OS X onto PCs would damage Apple & OS X in the long-term, I think it's pertinent that not so very long ago Steve Jobs himself was quite happy to release a version of OS X for $100, internet-ready, OLPC laptops. AFAIK, the only thing that scuppered the deal was that the people behind OLPC refused him, much preferring Linux's open-source format.

I guess SJ believed that in the future many of these kids, finances permitting, would want to stick with the OS they grew up with, ie. they'd buy Macs later! So, in principle at least, there can't any insurmountable problems to releasing at least a version of OS X onto PCs. IMO, it all comes down to whether SJ believes it's in his & Apple's long-term financial interests, & not necessarily because of all those other reasons & objections that people put forward.

BenRoethig
Jan 17, 2007, 03:46 PM
No. I believe it would be a bad move for Apple. OS X works well on Macs because Apple can control the hardware. If Apple were to open OS X up to the PC world then Apple would have to support an exponentially larger hardware base, which could potentially open the OS up to new bugs and possibly even new security vulnerabilities. :eek:

If you're running the same intel hardware families, with the same drivers and you're running the same EFI firmware, everything is controlled. I've said this before, the Apple logo doesn't have magical properties that makes everything work, it's the drivers in the operating system.

Also, why would Apple want to do something that could possibly persuade potential hardware buyers to go with a PC and OSX instead of a PowerBook, iMac or Power Mac?

Because they're not going to buy a Macbook, Macbook Pro, iMac, or Mac Pro. None of those are what they're looking for in a computer.

Dane D.
Jan 17, 2007, 04:21 PM
Rodimus Prime
But really it would not destroy the fan base. I think it is rather sad and disheartening to read post like this because that just shows that a lot of Mac users think all PC users are crap and just cause more resentment and proof of the mac annoying better than you attitude (not a good quality ever)
I have yet to sit in front of a PC that doesn't cause me to lose my cool. I have used custom-built, DELL, HP, Gateway, and custom-built game PCs, none are worth having. The parts don't last, the constant updating of drivers and hoping they work with the system, the heat generated by them. No thanks, I'll take a Mac anyday, they just work. As for your take on the 'annoying better than you attitude', you don't get what using a Mac is than.

dejo
Jan 17, 2007, 04:33 PM
If you're running the same intel hardware families, with the same drivers and you're running the same EFI firmware, everything is controlled.
Ay, but there's the rub. You would need different drivers because you have a different OS! Methinks you need to learn more about what a driver is and how it relates to the OS. A driver for Windows != a driver for Mac OS X.

Nym
Jan 18, 2007, 05:33 AM
wow some people think all PC users just pirated software. Hell I would gladly take that bet hell I willing to put a few grand on the line on it.
Piracy has historically been around 15-20% of software. and oddly going out side of that range is never really a good thing because going below general means you antipiraticy is way to hard and causing more problems than it is solving and going above it general means you software is over priced and/or you anti pirating it not good enough.

But really it would not destroy the fan base. I think it is rather sad and disheartening to read post like this because that just shows that a lot of Mac users think all PC users are crap and just cause more resentment and proof of the mac annoying better than you attitude (not a good quality ever)

Don't throw numbers at me, there is no possible way for anyone to even make an estimate of how many illegal copies of Windows XP (for example) are in use today so don't make assumptions of how OSX would or would not be pirated.

I've used a PC all my life, my switch to Mac happened only a few months ago, and if one year ago someone would come to me and say: "Hey, I've got OSX Tiger running on my PC, do you wanna try it?" I would gladly test it and if it was behaving properly I would have never gotten my 24" iMac in the first place? why? 2000$ enough reason? However, now I reject those "Hackintosh" pseudo-mac's, Mac's are a package, the whole deal, OSX does not make a Mac IMO. And I only realised it after I bough my own Mac.

Look, I don't believe that Mac users are superior in any way, the thing is, we have our OS and PC users have theirs, we don't go into their forums complaining that games should be released for OSX, each system flaw comes with the territory and it's a choice that only you can take. I chose Mac's and YES, I believe that if you wan't a reliable machine that "just works" you go and buy a Mac, bite the bullet like I did, it's worth it. And no Hackintosh can do the same.

Apple is a brand, it lives by it's image, imagine what would be an Apple logo slapped on every POS PC... very degrading, and I figure that they've already thought of that by now.

BenRoethig
Jan 18, 2007, 06:21 AM
Ay, but there's the rub. You would need different drivers because you have a different OS! Methinks you need to learn more about what a driver is and how it relates to the OS. A driver for Windows != a driver for Mac OS X.

Apple isn't using custom chipsets anymore. The 945 mobile chipsets the Macbook, Macbook Pro, iMac, and Mac Mini are the same 945 mobile chipsets used by the PC ranks. The 5000X used in the Mac Pro and the 5000P used in the xserve are the same used on the PC side. Apple already has driver support for those platforms in Mac OS X because they need it for their own computers to work.

Rodimus Prime
Jan 18, 2007, 07:20 AM
Don't throw numbers at me, there is no possible way for anyone to even make an estimate of how many illegal copies of Windows XP (for example) are in use today so don't make assumptions of how OSX would or would not be pirated.

to tell you the truth there is a way to get a rough count (and it is a really easy 2) of how many illegal copies of XP are out there and has hard as it as it is for you to accepted, most copies of windows XP are legit.

As for the easy way to get the count, M$ knows about how many copies of XP it has sold. They can log how many verson of the OS are coming in for updates and there is a straight count right there. They know it is a little worse than that but for the most part it a good rough number to get a % on. And you say I thowing numbers at you...You are the one who though the 70% of the verson would be illegal copies. I willing to bet over 10% and more than likely 15-20% current copies of Tiger out there are not legal.

elcerrito494
Jan 18, 2007, 08:56 AM
If OSX is released to PCs, OSX will become as horrid as XP.

gregorsamsa
Jan 18, 2007, 09:04 AM
to tell you the truth there is a way to get a rough count (and it is a really easy 2) of how many illegal copies of XP are out there and has hard as it as it is for you to accepted, most copies of windows XP are legit.

As for the easy way to get the count, M$ knows about how many copies of XP it has sold. They can log how many verson of the OS are coming in for updates and there is a straight count right there. They know it is a little worse than that but for the most part it a good rough number to get a % on. And you say I thowing numbers at you...You are the one who though the 70% of the verson would be illegal copies. I willing to bet over 10% and more than likely 15-20% current copies of Tiger out there are not legal.

Good points. The fact is that MS's billions come mostly from WS & their office software. Their anti-piracy measures would have to be far more effective than some here seem to suggest. The same safeguards would apply to OS X running on PCs.

Also: if Linux, another UNIX coded OS, with some 40 million active users, or nearly double the number of users OS X has, can remain very secure on the PC platform, why wouldn't OS X remain equally as secure?

IMO, most objections to OS X being released on to PCs are missing the crux of the matter. That is: Apple make far more profit on each Mac sold than any other computer company makes on individual PCs. If Apple ever decide that their hardware business won't be adversely affected by releasing OS X on to PCs, we'll see such a move in next to no time!

It has little to do with compromising the integrity of OS X, risking a major influx of viruses, or ruining the Apple experience, etc. IMO, Apple are just another major corporate power seeking to control &, where possible, increase their enormous profits.

PS: FWIW, OS X released on to PCs wouldn't stop me from buying another Mac in future. It would just allow me to run a legit copy of OS X on a much more powerful computer than I could afford if I wanted a Mac with the same specs.

dejo
Jan 18, 2007, 09:06 AM
Apple isn't using custom chipsets anymore. The 945 mobile chipsets the Macbook, Macbook Pro, iMac, and Mac Mini are the same 945 mobile chipsets used by the PC ranks. The 5000X used in the Mac Pro and the 5000P used in the xserve are the same used on the PC side. Apple already has driver support for those platforms in Mac OS X because they need it for their own computers to work.
You need drivers (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Device_driver) for more than just the chipsets, though. Much more! You need them for all the devices that could be connected to the computer as well: graphics cards, sound cards, printers, scanners, network cards, I/O buses, storage device buses, etc. All these would need to be created for Mac OS X in order for it to running successfully on the average beige-box PC. And that would be the nightmare!

Rodimus Prime
Jan 18, 2007, 09:19 AM
You need drivers (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Device_driver) for more than just the chipsets, though. Much more! You need them for all the devices that could be connected to the computer as well: graphics cards, sound cards, printers, scanners, network cards, I/O buses, storage device buses, etc. All these would need to be created for Mac OS X in order for it to running successfully on the average beige-box PC. And that would be the nightmare!

well lets see of that list of things that would matter
Printer and scanner (hell anything connected by USB ports) Mac require drivers. The default drivers are only so good and the rest is 3rd party, No different there.

Graphic cards--It just a chip set and ATI and Nvidia are the ones who take care of that currently so again no different there.

Sound cards--- Read graphic card, would be no different there.

The biggest difference would be handling the increase number of mobo chip sets it would be dealing with and for the most part that is a fairly LOW number and not to hard to deal with. All the Intel ones Intel already handles and I willing to bet they are all very similar to each other with minor difference here and there. It would be the 2 or 3 different AMD ones but really not a huge deal.

For the most part the driver mess is pretty limited to a small handful of things and most of it would be all mobo related and again there are only a very small handful there. Intel VIA and Nevada are the main chip sets. Oh and AMD which would not be a real issue.

dejo
Jan 18, 2007, 09:44 AM
For the most part the driver mess is pretty limited to a small handful of things and most of it would be all mobo related and again there are only a very small handful there. Intel VIA and Nevada are the main chip sets. Oh and AMD which would not be a real issue.
http://forum.insanelymac.com/index.php?showforum=11

BenRoethig
Jan 18, 2007, 10:02 AM
You need drivers (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Device_driver) for more than just the chipsets, though. Much more! You need them for all the devices that could be connected to the computer as well: graphics cards, sound cards, printers, scanners, network cards, I/O buses, storage device buses, etc. All these would need to be created for Mac OS X in order for it to running successfully on the average beige-box PC. And that would be the nightmare!

And they're also the same ones used on the Mac. Mac OS has had to support a good 90% of the support hardware windows does. This isn't 1997 where every part is custom created for Apple. Also, Forget the BIOS era PCs, that's not what I'm talking about, they're the past. What I'm talking is intel based machines with certified hardware. It would be a intel 900 series desktop or mobile chipset with a Mac EFI firmware with BIOS compatibility so they can ship windows on the same machines.

Nym
Jan 18, 2007, 10:06 AM
to tell you the truth there is a way to get a rough count (and it is a really easy 2) of how many illegal copies of XP are out there and has hard as it as it is for you to accepted, most copies of windows XP are legit.

As for the easy way to get the count, M$ knows about how many copies of XP it has sold. They can log how many verson of the OS are coming in for updates and there is a straight count right there. They know it is a little worse than that but for the most part it a good rough number to get a % on. And you say I thowing numbers at you...You are the one who though the 70% of the verson would be illegal copies. I willing to bet over 10% and more than likely 15-20% current copies of Tiger out there are not legal.

Look, you're just being picky, you're defending that people don't pirate a lot and you know that's just being naive, also, when I said 700,000 illegal OSX copies I was using a figure of speech if you didn't understand, I wasn't trying to make a precise market forecast :D
My point was, why even talk about this, Mac OSX is made to run on Apple Hardware, the discussion is: "Should Apple release it to the general population?", my answer is NO, why?
Because in the end an OS is all about stability, and once the general population of hackers get their hands on OSX we would be a week away to see our Mac's infested with crap and Anti-Virus software running in the background hogging system resources destroying the "just works" we are all used to.
We have i-Sight, Apple Remote, iLife, Dashboard, Exposé ... seriously, someone wants this too I say "Get a Mac!".

Also, there's less OSX illegal copies, why? because with a PC I can go into a hardware store and build one myself, not having to buy the OS, with a Mac, when you buy one, it bundles with OSX.

dejo
Jan 18, 2007, 10:14 AM
What I'm talking is intel based machines with certified hardware. It would be a intel 900 series desktop or mobile chipset with a Mac EFI firmware with BIOS compatibility so they can ship windows on the same machines.
IMO, that's not a "beige-box" PC.

Rodimus Prime
Jan 18, 2007, 10:22 AM
http://forum.insanelymac.com/index.php?showforum=11

well better put the only new possible driver mess added on OSX would be a very small number dealing with the mobo for the most part. Everything else for a large part would stay the same.

There might and I mean MIGHT be some minor issues with opical driver but even that is unlikely since for the most part those are very standardized and use the same stuff. Everything else stays exactly the same.
The only reason that drivers could become more of an issue is because a larger volume of new stuff would be made for OSX but as I stated above it really would change very very little over what it is like today in drivers.

Rodimus Prime
Jan 18, 2007, 10:32 AM
Look, you're just being picky, you're defending that people don't pirate a lot and you know that's just being naive, also, when I said 700,000 illegal OSX copies I was using a figure of speech if you didn't understand, I wasn't trying to make a precise market forecast :D
My point was, why even talk about this, Mac OSX is made to run on Apple Hardware, the discussion is: "Should Apple release it to the general population?", my answer is NO, why?
Because in the end an OS is all about stability, and once the general population of hackers get their hands on OSX we would be a week away to see our Mac's infested with crap and Anti-Virus software running in the background hogging system resources destroying the "just works" we are all used to.
We have i-Sight, Apple Remote, iLife, Dashboard, Exposť ... seriously, someone wants this too I say "Get a Mac!".

Also, there's less OSX illegal copies, why? because with a PC I can go into a hardware store and build one myself, not having to buy the OS, with a Mac, when you buy one, it bundles with OSX.

Wow..... Do not even try to understand PC and pirating here because clearly you do not.
You reasoning on why OSX has less illegal copies is pretty much wrong. One huge reason OSX has less illegal copies of it is well there just are less computers running OSX so even if M$ was at less than 5% illegal it would still have more than apple if apple was sitting at 20%. I do not know apple illegal % number but I would not be surprised in the least to see it at around the same number as M$.

The custom builders for PC are a very very small % of the market. A lot smaller than apple % of computers. And MOST of them run legal copies of the OS. Most of the pirated version of XP are people upgrading to XP or to XP pro.

The reason OSX has less illegal copies is do to the fact that apple as huge following of people who love them and will not steal from them. There is no debating the fact that apple has a huge number of people who love and very crazy about them. A much larger % of there user base is like that and that huge reason that there is not stealing.

You can say get a mac but I know a ton of people who will never touch an apple desktop but love there laptops. I am a prime example of those people. I love my mac book but I will never get an apple desktop plane and simple (I listed my reasons in an earlier post). As I said early I would love to have OSX on my desktop but I refuse to ever buy and apple desktop and my reasoning for it was listed in an early post.

Dont Hurt Me
Jan 18, 2007, 10:34 AM
IMO, that's not a "beige-box" PC.Do they even still make beige boxes? I havent seen one in years. The difference between Mac & PC is simply the OS, the hardware is the same inside nowdays. The PC vs Mac hardware days & wars are over, a Mac is a PC only with the Mac operating system. Its time For everyone to figure that out. This is why its now time for Apple to market its OS and get back all that was lost to Microstink.

gregorsamsa
Jan 18, 2007, 11:23 AM
Do they even still make beige boxes? I havent seen one in years. The difference between Mac & PC is simply the OS, the hardware is the same inside nowdays. The PC vs Mac hardware days & wars are over, a Mac is a PC only with the Mac operating system. Its time For everyone to figure that out. This is why its now time for Apple to market its OS and get back all that was lost to Microstink.

Yes, the "beige boxes" label does seem to be a bit of a misnomer. Most PCs have moved on enormously since the days of beige boxes & many now easily rival Macs in the looks dept.

Some people are happy to pay extra for aesthetically pleasing boxes, but the most important things are the OS & the quality of the components inside. As you rightly point out, most of the architecture inside a Mac is little different from any PC at a similar price.

dejo
Jan 18, 2007, 11:30 AM
Do they even still make beige boxes?
I don't mean the color of the case specifically. I mean the term as a generic concept, which I believe the author of the article in question meant too.

XIII
Jan 18, 2007, 11:59 AM
I don't mean the color of the case specifically. I mean the term as a generic concept, which I believe the author of the article in question meant too.

Yeah, that was my understanding too.

dejo
Jan 18, 2007, 12:06 PM
A Mac is a PC minus the OS. Thats a fact jack.
Oh, and of course all those pesky OS-specific drivers... ;)

calculus
Jan 18, 2007, 12:22 PM
the Apple logo doesn't have magical properties that makes everything work

Oh yes it does!

Dont Hurt Me
Jan 18, 2007, 12:23 PM
Back in the PPC days I would argue a Mac isnt a PC but now days they are minus software. I now own a new Dell....Boo Hisss and all that I know,I know but I really like it, I work the Heck out of it with TV,Net and games and its on every second im usually home. Its been great. Its also quiet, and powerful sleeps well, and just blows away my 2yr old Mini and costs the same as a Mini. The argument of Mac hardware vs PC hardware is over, Apple has the same factories who make PCs make Macs and they use 99.9999999% the same parts. What Makes a Mac a Mac is the OS. Come on Apple its time to market OSX unless you really want Microstink to continue running the show. Im ready to put OSX in my new Dell:eek:

dejo
Jan 18, 2007, 01:09 PM
Im ready to put OSX in my new Dell:eek:
osx86project.org (http://wiki.osx86project.org/wiki/index.php/Main_Page)

What's stopping you?

BenRoethig
Jan 18, 2007, 02:35 PM
Do they even still make beige boxes? I havent seen one in years.

Gateway still makes them.

The difference between Mac & PC is simply the OS, the hardware is the same inside nowdays. The PC vs Mac hardware days & wars are over, a Mac is a PC only with the Mac operating system. Its time For everyone to figure that out. This is why its now time for Apple to market its OS and get back all that was lost to Microstink

OS and a significantly more stylish, but also less practical package. Save the Mac Pro of course.

BenRoethig
Jan 18, 2007, 02:38 PM
I agree, PCW are well known for producing substandard, budget PCs. But I did say "quality PC companies", for eg., Hewlett Packard, Sony, Lenovo, Acer, Evesham (desktops mostly), Asus, etc. All are quite comparable with Apple Macs in the general quality of their hardware.

There's a lot of PC companies with comparable quality. They also have comparable prices.

Sun Baked
Jan 18, 2007, 03:19 PM
Oh yes it does!

Not since they got rid of the magic rainbow on every logo. :(

BenRoethig
Jan 18, 2007, 03:21 PM
Yes, the "beige boxes" label does seem to be a bit of a misnomer. Most PCs have moved on enormously since the days of beige boxes & many now easily rival Macs in the looks dept.

Some people are happy to pay extra for aesthetically pleasing boxes, but the most important things are the OS & the quality of the components inside. As you rightly point out, most of the architecture inside a Mac is little different from any PC at a similar price.

Yes, people are willing to pay a little bit more for a good looking box. That's why companies like Lian-Li and Coolermaster exist. However it takes a little more convincing to give up functionality for those aesthetics. An iMac is a lot of things, but it's no substitute for a mini or mid-tower.

gregorsamsa
Jan 18, 2007, 04:12 PM
There's a lot of PC companies with comparable quality. They also have comparable prices.

For sure, though it's a point that some Mac owners are either genuinely unaware of, or simply refuse to accept out of blinkered loyalty to Apple.

The reality is that PC land is now such a competitive market that PC companies simply can't afford to sell people inferior hardware at a premium. If they do, they only lose customers to other companies, get bad press, bad weblogs, etc., & eventually go out of business.

An iMac is a lot of things, but it's no substitute for a mini or mid-tower.

However, as impressive as some of the new PC AIOs & PC minis are, I still think that both the iMacs & Mac minis hold up very well to their PC counterparts, even without OS X.

If Apple refuse to release a version of OS X for PCs in future, then I think they would do very well to add an upgradable, non-pro, mid-tower Mac to their existing range. But without one or the other, Apple & OS X will continue to lose many more potential switchers.

Do they care? Going by recent financial results, probably not. Do I care? Yes, as I now have to at least consider buying a PC in the coming months...something I dearly hoped to avoid.

LethalWolfe
Jan 18, 2007, 05:26 PM
Back in the PPC days I would argue a Mac isnt a PC but now days they are minus software. I now own a new Dell....Boo Hisss and all that I know,I know but I really like it, I work the Heck out of it with TV,Net and games and its on every second im usually home. Its been great. Its also quiet, and powerful sleeps well, and just blows away my 2yr old Mini and costs the same as a Mini. The argument of Mac hardware vs PC hardware is over, Apple has the same factories who make PCs make Macs and they use 99.9999999% the same parts. What Makes a Mac a Mac is the OS. Come on Apple its time to market OSX unless you really want Microstink to continue running the show. Im ready to put OSX in my new Dell:eek:
Even the magical power of the Apple Logo is no defense for the endless, software crippling combinations of hardware, drivers, and firmware in the "WinTel" world. I like Apple having a hand in both the software and the hardware, and I like the bargain basement prices for top of the line apps that's a result of Apple being a hardware company that happens to make software.


Lethal

Nym
Jan 19, 2007, 07:21 AM
You can say get a mac but I know a ton of people who will never touch an apple desktop but love there laptops. I am a prime example of those people. I love my mac book but I will never get an apple desktop plane and simple (I listed my reasons in an earlier post). As I said early I would love to have OSX on my desktop but I refuse to ever buy and apple desktop and my reasoning for it was listed in an early post.

You said it all, if you don't like Apple desktops... I can see why you defend the "OSX on PC" strategy. What you're saying is like: "I would never buy a Zune but I want it's software to run on my Mac".

And FWIW, 90% of all the people I know use PC's, 90% have pirated XP copies.

The other 10% have Mac's, all legit OSX copies.

nplima
Jan 19, 2007, 07:47 AM
What Makes a Mac a Mac is the OS. Come on Apple its time to market OSX unless you really want Microstink to continue running the show. Im ready to put OSX in my new Dell:eek:

OS X is obviously important but so is defending the brand. What would Apple gain from trying to fight Microsoft or the big PC manufacturers heads-on? they seem to do fine as they are today, defending a sort of high-end reputation for relatively normal computers. Competing in a comodity market isn't for everyone, and I bet that most manufacturers would rather be in Apple's position instead of the other way around. Let them "run the show" and gain 1% margins on vanilla hardware...

If you're so keen on having a unix-like OS on a standard Dell box, try Ubuntu Linux with a blue-ish theme and try to imagine it's OS X :) . The music library and photo album software that come with Gnome these days are quite impressive. Besides you can always run your OEM copy of Windows inside of VMware player.

BenRoethig
Jan 19, 2007, 08:42 AM
OS X is obviously important but so is defending the brand. What would Apple gain from trying to fight Microsoft or the big PC manufacturers heads-on? they seem to do fine as they are today, defending a sort of high-end reputation for relatively normal computers. Competing in a comodity market isn't for everyone, and I bet that most manufacturers would rather be in Apple's position instead of the other way around. Let them "run the show" and gain 1% margins on vanilla hardware...

If you're so keen on having a unix-like OS on a standard Dell box, try Ubuntu Linux with a blue-ish theme and try to imagine it's OS X :) . The music library and photo album software that come with Gnome these days are quite impressive. Besides you can always run your OEM copy of Windows inside of VMware player.


I don't know, more users, profit, being able to be the leader of the computer industry rather than Copysoft's defacto muse and R&D. Innovations are only good if you're the one that profits off them.

Rodimus Prime
Jan 19, 2007, 08:42 AM
You said it all, if you don't like Apple desktops... I can see why you defend the "OSX on PC" strategy. What you're saying is like: "I would never buy a Zune but I want it's software to run on my Mac".

And FWIW, 90% of all the people I know use PC's, 90% have pirated XP copies.

The other 10% have Mac's, all legit OSX copies.


wow all the people you know much be scum then. Because apparently all you know are ones that steal. steal.
Now for me I want to say 95%+ of the people I know, that use windows, (other wise OSX users are not in that %) all have legit copies of windows and the stolen ones are rare.

I mean that much mean most of your friends build computer because at this point the 5 years+ year old computers are getting replaced and very few people build there own and that means any new computer they bought has a legal copy of windows. Either way that just goes to show you that you are making crap up. Really it is annoying that some mac users have there head so far up there rear that they think all PC users are thieves and clearly do not know what they are talking about when they know if a copy is legal or not.

And it what I was saying is not like I want a Zune software to run on a mac but never get a Zune. It was me saying I would like OSX on my desktop. I will never buy an apple desktop because to get any sort real upgradeability I have to pay way to much money. Mac Pros are 2 expensive. I do not care if they are a good value for there price. I just do not want to have to pay a ton of extra money for stuff I do not want and most of that wasted money goes into the CPU part. I paying a huge premium for the top of the line processors from intel and multiple ones of them. I want a CPU around what is in the iMac but the upgradebility of a Mac Pro. So until apple releases a product like that in the desktops I refuse to buy one. Right now everything iMac and down is just a unmovable laptop as far as I am consumed. The upgrades that can be done to them is about the same to what you could do to a laptop and I am sorry but I already own a laptop that I can take with me. Why in hell would I want to buy one than can not move. You can flame me if you want but I laid out my logical reasoning on why I will not buy an apple desktop.

BenRoethig
Jan 19, 2007, 08:49 AM
You said it all, if you don't like Apple desktops... I can see why you defend the "OSX on PC" strategy. What you're saying is like: "I would never buy a Zune but I want it's software to run on my Mac".


What we're really is Apple do your business or get off the pot. If you you're going to expand your lineup to include more traditional users, do it. If not, open up the OS so someone else can. As good as the experience is with OSX, it becomes greatly diminished if the hardware you're running it on doesn't do what you want it to do. There is a world outside photoshop and iLife that Apple greatly neglects.

BlackMax
Jan 19, 2007, 10:09 AM
Apple isn't using custom chipsets anymore. The 945 mobile chipsets the Macbook, Macbook Pro, iMac, and Mac Mini are the same 945 mobile chipsets used by the PC ranks. The 5000X used in the Mac Pro and the 5000P used in the xserve are the same used on the PC side. Apple already has driver support for those platforms in Mac OS X because they need it for their own computers to work.

Are you assuming Apple would provide a version of OSX for PCs that only use the Intel 945 mobile chipset? PCs use Intel chipsets, AMD chipsets, Nvidia chipsets, SiS chipsets and probably a dozen more I can't think of at the moment. Each of these vendors inturn have dozens of varieties of chipsets. Not to mention all the different video, audio and storage controller chips that would need to be supported. PC users expect to be able to change their components like most people change their underwear and they expect their PC OS to support whatever component de jour they happen to be using that week.

I could be wrong on this, but I believe it would be a total nightmare for Apple to try and extend OSX to the PC industry. I do not believe all the time and money spent on R&D, enhancements and support to accomodate all the various hardware devices available would be cost effective in the long run and might even give OSX a bad reputation if things did not go well.

Just my two-cents. :)

gregorsamsa
Jan 19, 2007, 11:14 AM
And FWIW, 90% of all the people I know use PC's, 90% have pirated XP copies.

The other 10% have Mac's, all legit OSX copies.

The implication being? Presumably this 90% that you're acquainted with have pirated all of MS's software also?

It makes me wonder how exactly do you think MS makes its billions, with the kind of profit margins that leave even companies like Apple trailing in the distance!

Teh Don Ditty
Jan 19, 2007, 11:26 AM
It makes me wonder how exactly do you think MS makes its billions, with the kind of profit margins that leave even companies like Apple trailing in the distance!

OEM licensing, corporate contracts and threatening people.

gregorsamsa
Jan 19, 2007, 12:00 PM
OEM licensing, corporate contracts and threatening people.

I notice that there appears to be a slight propensity for people who disagree with the idea of OS X being released for PCs, to then make all sorts of claims which, frankly speaking, some of you just can't back up.

Please ponder over how certain, previously stated MS products relate to MS's profits/losses. Link below:

MS Earnings for 2004 & 2005 quarters ending 31st March (http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/business/222155_msftearns29.html).

Hence, my earlier post.

Teh Don Ditty
Jan 19, 2007, 12:14 PM
What do you think client (pc windows) is? It is windows purchased in stores and sold to pc manufacturers (OEM) and it could also include business contracts (though i probably doubt it) I also forgot to include office (how stupid of me).

BenRoethig
Jan 19, 2007, 12:33 PM
Are you assuming Apple would provide a version of OSX for PCs that only use the Intel 945 mobile chipset? PCs use Intel chipsets, AMD chipsets, Nvidia chipsets, SiS chipsets and probably a dozen more I can't think of at the moment. Each of these vendors inturn have dozens of varieties of chipsets. Not to mention all the different video, audio and storage controller chips that would need to be supported. PC users expect to be able to change their components like most people change their underwear and they expect their PC OS to support whatever component de jour they happen to be using that week.

I could be wrong on this, but I believe it would be a total nightmare for Apple to try and extend OSX to the PC industry. I do not believe all the time and money spent on R&D, enhancements and support to accomodate all the various hardware devices available would be cost effective in the long run and might even give OSX a bad reputation if things did not go well.

Just my two-cents. :)

I'm talking about a strategy that moves forward. BIOS is the past and should not be supported. Requiring EFI narrows it down to current chipsets. VIA and SIS are effectively out of the chipset market. They may be still around, but nobody is buying them. That Leaves the PC market with first party Intel, first party AMD, and third party Nvidia for both platforms. Take away the AMD offerings and you're left with Intel first party and Nvidia SLI offerings. that's more than manageable.

gregorsamsa
Jan 19, 2007, 02:07 PM
What do you think client (pc windows) is? It is windows purchased in stores and sold to pc manufacturers (OEM) and it could also include business contracts (though i probably doubt it) I also forgot to include office (how stupid of me).

Client also includes all customers buying copies of XP. The charts show all MS profits/losses for those quarters, including their sales to consumers, for eg. even their consumer gaming division.

No-one is making anyone out to be stupid here, but some people seem prepared to use any degree of selective reasoning to justify their devotion to Apple's business strategy & profiteering at the expense of a, generally, very loyal user base.

and threatening people.

You're right, MS do make threats, but if you're implying that Apple never threaten anyone (when in fact they've a bit of a history of threatening lawsuits on those who dare confront their autocratic way of doing business), then, IMO, that is being selective.

I like my Mac, but the most important thing to me is OS X. Now that Boot Camp allows WS applications onto Macs, applications often far cheaper than their Mac-native counterparts, how long do you think it'll be before software development for OS X is seriously affected? I'd say no more than a few years.

Teh Don Ditty
Jan 19, 2007, 03:26 PM
That last line was a joke and was not supposed to be taken seriously.

I understand what you're saying: some people are blind and don't back up what they are saying with facts (or something that is true)

I do see your point in regards to software development and it's a valid one. Hopefully, we won't have to see the day when development on the Mac ceases to exist. The short-term (or near-term) future for Apple is very bright, but who knows in 2-3 years. (I like to hope it's bright, but nobody really knows)