Running Mac OS X on Generic PCs with Parallels/VMWare?

[ddubbo]

The first thing I always mention when I argue with someone who debates the merit of a Mac, based on price, is that OS X is worth $400 to me. Sure, it's available for less than that, but the cost of OS X is subsidized through hardware sales.

If $400 seems like too much to you, let's say $200. That's less than the cost of a loaded version of Windows. And let's not forget iLife (even though I feel somewhat cheated for not receiving iLife '07 with any of the computers I've bought this month ;)). $80 is what it goes for new. But subtract $280.

So my Mac mini really cost $320, the cost of a similarly-specced tower computer which wouldn't and shouldn't be placed right under my TV.

My MacBook (C2D) really cost $1100, and my wife's (CD) cost $700. Not too shabby.

But these price/performance arguments are inherently moronic because they only consider performance. I might be the only one out there, but I really like OS X a lot more than Windows. I also like my remote controls, iSights, optical audio, and the painful physical beauty of these machines. Call me a girly-man, but I like **** that looks nice.



It doesn't (or shouldn't, unless you try to "fix" your Mac) cost you if it's a fault in construction or design, or if it's a result of normal usage occurring in the warranty or AppleCare period. other, while an unlucky bastard, is proof of this because he has not had to pay for three logic boards for each of the computers that has been basically DOA.

As far as machines out of warranty/AppleCare are concerned, that's when taking apart your Mac is perfectly acceptable. A year or two ago I replaced the logic board in an iBook. A harrowing experience, but I got through it okay, and I'm @#$%ing stupid.

I gave you all the prices including Windows OEM installed already

Apple Care? It's a joke. Another way how Apple extracts money from their congregation. A lot of PC manufactures gives 3-year warranty to their more than 1000$ machines(incl Dell,HP,Lenovo). Apple doesn't do it even of their highest-end machines. Don't they trust theirs hardware.?

[iW00t]

You are kinda exaggerating a little, I got it installed on a PC after growing tired of waiting for Apple to update the currently overpriced Mac Mini and installed it on a Core 2 Duo 2.16Ghz PC with 2GB of ram and a 7600GT.

No problems apart from not being able to reboot and Activity Monitor quitting the moment it is launched.

It is not perfect - so what? I realised that I don't need the Mac Mini. Besides I'd put good money on a bet that says this machine with a Conroe is a lot faster than most iMacs.

Best of all? It is only a bit more expensive than a Mini.

I love how the CEO of VMware bragged about their software being used to run illegal hacked versions of Mac OS X.

I've run it, and boy, is it a pain in the ass. Just to update, you must enter 6,000 damn commands, wait for a hacked patch, and even though the patch is hacked, it doesnt have the actual kernel, I believe they're still using 10.4.4 as the hacked OSX86 kernel. Once you do get it running, and it takes a very long time and certain hardware, it can be as fast as a new Mac, but its still a pain.

I hope :apple: works on the protection in Leopard final more. Because I've seen beta versions running on regular PCs. o.o

Its all been done at www.insanelymac.com.

Though, some people that ran the hacked versions went out and bought a real mac, seeing how great the OS is.

Besides, the hacked versions can be buggy, due to the fact that some drivers for hardware was created by teams of rather smart people, but isnt sactioned offically by Apple. Remember kitties, when you take OSX, open it up for any hardware to work on it, it'll suck just as bad as Windows does when it comes to hardware. Buggy drivers = Crashy compy.

[a456]

Macs are not overpriced, they just have value added in ways that your average PC buyer doesn't think about. They see price not longevity, design, ruggedness, compactness, convenience (e.g. built in iSight). My Mac has lasted me longer than any cheap PC - because it still has a good sized HDD even after four years, it still has a processor that runs the latest version of OS X and it still amazes me with its compact (12" PB) size that means it can be thrown into a rucksack with ease. Even when I have fitted PC laptops into rucksacks they haven't survived long because the cheap HDD has packed up from movement. A good quality Mac lasts longer, and not just in terms of still working but still doing the job it was built to do.

A minor point but one that shows Apple's attention to detail, and how they add value: I don't have a single key on which the letters have rubbed off, something I have never seen on other PCs the same age - or even half the age - and I use it all day every day.

[2ndPath]

It appears that the server market, and to a lesser extent the workstation market, will be one of the big areas where virtualization is applied in the business world. M$ bought the virtualization technology for that specific reason. With the arrival of commonly available mult-core processors various cores can be assigned various OSes (and applications) to handle whatever the company needs run. As the power (and number of cores) grows I would expect virtualization will become more mainstream. Just imagine a server that could run a finite element analysis program that has not been updated since DOS, but still fills a need, simultaneously with Vista or whatever M$ is then pushing, along with Linux and OS X for those so inclined. Each independent of the other and able to assign additional corese to one or the other depending upon demand.

Actually do you know how much Apple is into these markets? The impression I get from the description of their server products is that they are mainly geared towards beeing workgroup servers for up to a few tens of people. Are they also used to run large scale data base applications. My impression was that these are still dominated by other Unix systems and Windows. The big strenght of OSX is the user interface and that is not really important for server applications. But if Apple really want to establish OSX as an important server OS, they probably need a virtualisation solution. And even if not, it would still be good to have it.

[ankhman]

The article is so marked up and updated, it is hard to follow. Anyway, the only thing that will really matter is what Parallels will release. They supposedly did say at MacWorld there will be a significant release available in a couple of weeks. I only hope the existing bugs are fixed before anything really "new" is added. Great product, lousy or no product support, and their focus seems to be on "Beta" releases (I guess they are at least honest, MS has been getting away with crappy Official Windows XX builds for years).

[other]

I received my third MacBook today. Guess what? It still whines.

[Zadillo]

I received my third MacBook today. Guess what? It still whines.

Sorry to hear that. Enjoy your ThinkPad.

-Zadillo

[other]

Sorry to hear that. Enjoy your ThinkPad.

-Zadillo

That is if I can actually return this one. Apple wants me to take it to a service center for evaluation, who knows what will happen after that. I'm getting very tired of all this.

[Zadillo]

That is if I can actually return this one. Apple wants me to take it to a service center for evaluation, who knows what will happen after that. I'm getting very tired of all this.

Well, good luck either way.

-Zadillo

[other]

Hopefully OSx86 works alright. :)

[azentropy]

I was always against Apple licensing Mac OS X to others. But my opinion has changed.

Like many now I'm extremely frustrated with Apple's current offerings and the lack of a midrange expandable desktop. To get a Mac configured with 4gb of RAM it will cost $3200 from Apple. Which is a Mac Pro changing to the most minimum config except for the RAM... No other Mac can even handle 4gb and that isn't even getting into the limited expandablity of the Mac mini and iMac (or that I already have a monitor and don't want to pay for or even want an integrated one).

A HP or Dell (gasp) with a 2.4ghz Conroe and 4gb of Ram runs around $1300 (or less with the deals dell always runs or HP rebates)...

If Apple is going to ignore that segment for themselves, than I would like to see them allow others to legally fill that hole.

[RBR2]

I was always against Apple licensing Mac OS X to others. But my opinion has changed.

Like many now I'm extremely frustrated with Apple's current offerings and the lack of a midrange expandable desktop. To get a Mac configured with 4gb of RAM it will cost $3200 from Apple. Which is a Mac Pro changing to the most minimum config except for the RAM... No other Mac can even handle 4gb and that isn't even getting into the limited expandablity of the Mac mini and iMac (or that I already have a monitor and don't want to pay for or even want an integrated one).

A HP or Dell (gasp) with a 2.4ghz Conroe and 4gb of Ram runs around $1300 (or less with the deals dell always runs or HP rebates)...

If Apple is going to ignore that segment for themselves, than I would like to see them allow others to legally fill that hole.

"Right now" there is an effective 3 GB RAM limitation on the new Intel systems, whether from Apple, Dell, HP or you build it. "It's an Intel think" as some people have put it. I am not certain, but think that it is related to the support chip set being a 32 bit system rather than a 64 bit system. A 64 bit system will supposedly be out in the Spring. I am sure that many of the institutions which have G5 clusters are waiting for the ability to utilize more RAM before making the switch to the Intel systems.

Your point about mid-range systems is right on though.

[azentropy]

"Right now" there is an effective 3 GB RAM limitation on the new Intel systems, whether from Apple, Dell, HP or you build it. "It's an Intel think" as some people have put it. I am not certain, but think that it is related to the support chip set being a 32 bit system rather than a 64 bit system. A 64 bit system will supposedly be out in the Spring. I am sure that many of the institutions which have G5 clusters are waiting for the ability to utilize more RAM before making the switch to the Intel systems.

Your point about mid-range systems is right on though.

That isn't how I understand it. The chipsets using the Conroe (E6XXX) processors can address 4gb... it is the notebook chipsets that do not. And both the iMac and Mac mini are based on those...

[janstett]

And this is over with Vista.

Especially the 64-bit version. They are making a hard break against legacy compatibility there. That's where MS has drawn the line.

[RBR2]

That isn't how I understand it. The chipsets using the Conroe (E6XXX) processors can address 4gb... it is the notebook chipsets that do not. And both the iMac and Mac mini are based on those...

It is true that you can install 4 GB or RAM and it will appear as such on your system, but there will be only 3 GB which you can utilize. Apparently the other 1 GB is tied up with the system. The exact details are rather more than I cared to figure out when briefed on the matter. The bottom line is that current Intel systems are limited in their ability to utilize RAM when compared to the G5 systems.

[virduk]

If apple sold OS X for generic PCs, The price of OS X would go up tremendously!

Well..they could sell a sep standalone version. I know I'd be happy to pay Vista prices to run OSX on non-Apple hardware legally.

[MikeTheC]

Ooh boy, where to start on this...

I think there are several factors that are actively impacting this entire situation.

First, people are growing more and more frustrated dealing with Windows. Since Apple has been educating the general public that there is a viable alternative to Windows, and that most of the general public's problems stem from Windows, they've effectively been ginning up demand for their products. However, they're ginning up more demand than they can satisfy, particularly in the sense of people wanting a Mac OS X-running computer but not wanting to either pay what Apple's asking or be limited to the configuration options that Apple has made available.

Second, if Apple is to succeed, they need to be getting their platform (which is arguably the operating system, not the hardware) in front of as many people as possible.

Third, Apple needs to remember that even back during it's infancy, the iPod's volume of success was based on sales to non-Mac-using customers. That same basic market still exists, and getting Mac OS X out to that group would have the same basic kind of benefit.

Forth, Apple's not the only player in town providing a non-Microsoft solution. The GNU/Linux platform is expanding rather rapidly, and is threatening to outpace Apple's Darwin/Mach underpinnings development. At this point the only two advantages Apple has over Linux (and this is for the average computer user, not the expert) is end-to-end ease of use/controlled user experience; and secondly the availability of mainstream production apps with name recognition and specific feature sets.

And given that Linux runs (collectively speaking) on almost any kind of hardware (to say nothing of modern hardware), Apple has no built-in protection from Linux. The Linux development community will be the ones applying a full-court press on Apple's own development efforts. And clearly, the GNU/Linux crowd doesn't have a hardware agenda and will likely be quite happy to absorb all the Windows/Mac user base at the earliest opportunity.

As the Seventh Doctor once said, "Time will tell; it always does."

[iW00t]

"Right now" there is an effective 3 GB RAM limitation on the new Intel systems, whether from Apple, Dell, HP or you build it. "It's an Intel think" as some people have put it. I am not certain, but think that it is related to the support chip set being a 32 bit system rather than a 64 bit system. A 64 bit system will supposedly be out in the Spring. I am sure that many of the institutions which have G5 clusters are waiting for the ability to utilize more RAM before making the switch to the Intel systems.

Your point about mid-range systems is right on though.

That is not true. The new Core 2 Xeons obviously can do > 32 bit memory addressing, otherwise we wouldn't see much sense in the Mac Pro.

The only reason why the bulk of Apple's line is stuck in 32 bit land is not so much Intel's fault. Intel currently has the best desktop processor in the world which sports the new i965 chipset that carries 64 bit memory addressing. But Apple in their infinite wisdom decided to "think different" and spend extra cash on more expensive mobile processors for (1) no speed gain (2) no gain in battery life (desktops don't have batteries anyway) and ship iMacs and Minis with high price tags and arse backwards GPUs when they could have done as the rest of the PC industry has did and used desktop processors for desktops and spend that extra money on a REAL graphics chip.

Oh no, it is just so typically Apple to do break away from the norm in places that don't matter and make stuff that aren't practical. No wonder Macs still only have 4% marketshare.

I'd wish to see OS X get greater market penetration some day, at least then we will no longer have stupid stuff like websites that are ActiveX based and Windows-only and streaming videos that are using WMV.

Some Mac users prefer OS X to remain a niche OS so they can boast their ePeen. I don't share this sentiment. Share the love people! :D

[RBR2]

That is not true. The new Core 2 Xeons obviously can do > 32 bit memory addressing, otherwise we wouldn't see much sense in the Mac Pro.

The only reason why the bulk of Apple's line is stuck in 32 bit land is not so much Intel's fault. Intel currently has the best desktop processor in the world which sports the new i965 chipset that carries 64 bit memory addressing. But Apple in their infinite wisdom decided to "think different" and spend extra cash on more expensive mobile processors for (1) no speed gain (2) no gain in battery life (desktops don't have batteries anyway) and ship iMacs and Minis with high price tags and arse backwards GPUs when they could have done as the rest of the PC industry has did and used desktop processors for desktops and spend that extra money on a REAL graphics chip.

Oh no, it is just so typically Apple to do break away from the norm in places that don't matter and make stuff that aren't practical. No wonder Macs still only have 4% marketshare.

I'd wish to see OS X get greater market penetration some day, at least then we will no longer have stupid stuff like websites that are ActiveX based and Windows-only and streaming videos that are using WMV.

Some Mac users prefer OS X to remain a niche OS so they can boast their ePeen. I don't share this sentiment. Share the love people! :D

If it were just "an Apple thing" why is it that PCs from Dell & etc have the same limitation?

[FredG]

My two cents...

Microsoft has been fairly successful as a purely software company ;)

Apple isn't going to be able to control (stop) this now...so they should change course and make this a positive thing versus fighting a losing battle. They can if they choose to. Hopefully, Steve will remember how Apple (Steve) spit in Bill Gates' face many moons ago when Bill offered to get behind Apple's OS...not Windows. Bill went forward with Windows and we all know how that turned out.

Yes, Apple makes a lot of money off of hardware, but selling MILLIONS of copies of OS X would be a pretty huge chunk of change. Many times over the profits of hardware. Look at the profits of selling a kazillion iPods! I don't think Apple would lose a high percentage of Mac hardware users...BUT gain millions of OS X users.

Apple is moving out of being a niche company...seems to *me* like this could be THE move into the mainstream.

peace

I agree!

Given all of the ongoing negative news and opinion regarding MS Vista--including today’s news that support of the Home and Ultimate editions will be limited to 5 years--I believe that a PC version of OS X, including technology enabling it run most, if not all, existing PC applications, marketed in a single edition, consistent with Apple's way of doing things, could take the market by storm.

Steve Jobs knows that, too. That expectation had to be a factor in going Intel.

Apple has been remaking itself for years. It's no longer just a computer hardware company. OS X is so solid and so great that it can compete head on with Vista. I have a feeling that it could be on 10% of existing PC's in 2 years, 25% in 5 years. Perhaps, that’s overly optimistic, but at $200-250 a box, I could see Apple stock hit the moon.

Consider that OS X is already well engineered and in continuing development. The costs of adding a PC edition to Apple's software solutions would be relatively minor. Sooner or later, Apple is going to do just that! How could it not!

[Zadillo]

My two cents...

Hopefully, Steve will remember how Apple (Steve) spit in Bill Gates' face many moons ago when Bill offered to get behind Apple's OS...not Windows. Bill went forward with Windows and we all know how that turned out.

Do you honestly believe this? Or more specifically, do you honestly believe that this would have ever worked out well for Apple? Take a look at the history of MS's other OS partnerships and see how well you think this would work.

People who bring this up act like there would have been some glorious future where Apple kept doing the Mac OS, and Microsoft somehow would have not bothered doing Windows, and just developed software for the Mac.

But this isn't and has never been in Microsoft's character. Windows would have happened regardless, and Microsoft would have used the same advantage they always had.

And if Apple had taken Gates' advice, and Apple licensed the Mac OS way back when, they would have ultimately ended up as just one of many OS competitors that MS finally drove out of business (look at Digital Research and how MS handled the DR-DOS/MS-DOS competition for an idea of this).

[ortuno2k]

I don't agree on PC's having the privilege of running Mac OS X, even if it's done via emulation software.
Apple should squash whoever is making this possible and further restrict the OS to make it run on Apple hardware only!
I would really hate for Mac OS X to be abused, hacked, cracked, pirated, virused, peed and pooped on and so on and forth by disgruntled & frustrated PC users.
Hasta la Vista, Vista.

[PCMacUser]

I don't agree on PC's having the privilege of running Mac OS X, even if it's done via emulation software.
Apple should squash whoever is making this possible and further restrict the OS to make it run on Apple hardware only!
I would really hate for Mac OS X to be abused, hacked, cracked, pirated, virused, peed and pooped on and so on and forth by disgruntled & frustrated PC users.
Hasta la Vista, Vista.

Ahh get over it. The hardware it runs on doesn't make any difference to whether it gets pirated and hacked and virused etc. If Apple launched OS X for all Intel platforms right now it would take the market by storm. I never felt that way while XP was the thing in the world of Windows, but now with Vista's icy launch, the time is right.

[Zadillo]

Ahh get over it. The hardware it runs on doesn't make any difference to whether it gets pirated and hacked and virused etc. If Apple launched OS X for all Intel platforms right now it would take the market by storm. I never felt that way while XP was the thing in the world of Windows, but now with Vista's icy launch, the time is right.

My concern would be that the day Apple does that, Microsoft stops development of Office for the Mac.

-Zadillo

[FredG]

My concern would be that the day Apple does that, Microsoft stops development of Office for the Mac.

-Zadillo

Interesting point, that is, the possibility that MS would halt development of Office for the Mac were Apple to produce an edition of Mac OS X Leopard to run natively on the PC.

I doubt that MS would do that, but if it did, we would manage just fine. I'd continue using my existing version of MS Office for the Mac, which, I might add, hasn't been supported very well by MS, most noticeable in the case of the Mac version of Powerpoint, which has long been handicapped.

With the Mac's increasing share of the market, we'll hopefully see other players offer productivity suites for the Mac, able to read and write in existing MS formats as well as various open doc formats that will certainly be gaining a foothold.

Apple, too, could fill the vacuum that Zadillo worries about. It could, as I write, be developing a cross platform capable and comparable office suite of it's own. I believe a day is coming when Apple Universal will mount on PC's and PC software will mount on the Mac. So, MS Office is still likely to be there for Mac users, too.

There is much to be said for the growth of convergence and interoperability of the Mac, PC and other platforms. Apple seeded that possibility when it moved to Intel. If it brings to bear its continuing vision and excellence in design, production, marketing and service, we will long continue to see the Apple mark on increasing numbers of products and screens well into the future and future worlds beyond.

FredG

[Zadillo]

Interesting point, that is, the possibility that MS would halt development of Office for the Mac were Apple to produce an edition of Mac OS X Leopard to run natively on the PC.

I doubt that MS would do that, but if it did, we would manage just fine. I'd continue using my existing version of MS Office for the Mac, which, I might add, hasn't been supported very well by MS, most noticeable in the case of the Mac version of Powerpoint, which has long been handicapped.

With the Mac's increasing share of the market, we'll hopefully see other players offer productivity suites for the Mac, able to read and write in existing MS formats as well as various open doc formats that will certainly be gaining a foothold.

Apple, too, could fill the vacuum that Zadillo worries about. It could, as I write, be developing a cross platform capable and comparable office suite of it's own. I believe a day is coming when Apple Universal will mount on PC's and PC software will mount on the Mac. So, MS Office is still likely to be there for Mac users, too.

There is much to be said for the growth of convergence and interoperability of the Mac, PC and other platforms. Apple seeded that possibility when it moved to Intel. If it brings to bear its continuing vision and excellence in design, production, marketing and service, we will long continue to see the Apple mark on increasing numbers of products and screens well into the future and future worlds beyond.

FredG

Yeah. For what it's worth, I think it's completely hypothetical anyway (I just don't see Apple ever becoming a company that develops an OS for other PC hardware, as opposed to a company that develops the combined hardware/software package).

But MS ultimately is about money. As it is, they make a fairly nice chunk of change selling Office for OS X anyway. If Apple did actually make OS X available for any PC, MS might be hard pressed to ignore that market. It would be a bit different than Linux I think, which so far MS has declined to make a version of Office for.

Practically speaking it might not make so much of a difference, but perception wise it would still be a major blow.

[Cipher1011]

LOL

First off, Apple hardware is really PC hardware. It was Apple who moves ever closer and closer to the PC. I find it funny that an OS(Mac OS) based on an open source operating system, isn't freely available for other systems. The only thing that prevents OS X from operating on a PC is a chip called the TPM. Think of it, kind of like the DVD region chip.

As far as the virtualization, it is for the most part legal. After all, if it wasn't then Macs couldn't run Windows in an emulator.

I can build a better PC than what Mac offers on their website for a lot cheaper. It would be nice to be able just to buy the OS and do everything yourself.

[Zadillo]

LOL

First off, Apple hardware is really PC hardware. It was Apple who moves ever closer and closer to the PC. I find it funny that an OS(Mac OS) based on an open source operating system, isn't freely available for other systems. The only thing that prevents OS X from operating on a PC is a chip called the TPM. Think of it, kind of like the DVD region chip.

As far as the virtualization, it is for the most part legal. After all, if it wasn't then Macs couldn't run Windows in an emulator.

I can build a better PC than what Mac offers on their website for a lot cheaper. It would be nice to be able just to buy the OS and do everything yourself.

Why do you find it funny that commercial software built on an open source BSD kernel is not made freely available? The idea that using the BSD kernel obligates Apple to give their work away for free is silly.

As for virtualization, no-one said virtualization itself was illegal. But a company can decide what software can and can't be run via virtualization. In case you missed it, MS has specifically decided to NOT allow Vista Basic and Vista Home Premium to run in virtualization, requiring someone to buy Vista Business or Vista Ultimate. So even MS gets to decide which versions of their OS you can virtualize.

Just for grins and giggles; please tell me how you would build a machine yourself equivalent to the Mac Pro for "a lot cheaper" (I'm counting the internal specs, which are all pretty high end, and the chassis itself). You don't even have to explain how you'd build a "better" PC (i.e. even better/faster components, a better chassis, etc.). I'd be satisfied to hear how you'd build an equivalent Mac Pro-like machine for much cheaper than what Apple sells theirs for. Good luck with that.

-Zadillo

[dartzorichalcos]

I hope not. Mac OS X should only stay on Macs.

[Sam0r]

Is there actually any way of running an OS X virtual machine ontop of OS X on a real mac? Without any sort of hack or modification?

Thought not.

[LoganT]

I hope not. Mac OS X should only stay on Macs.

Apple shouldn't license it like Windows. They should license it to one particular company. Such as Dell, HP, Velocity Micro (which would probably be the best).

[Zadillo]

Apple shouldn't license it like Windows. They should license it to one particular company. Such as Dell, HP, Velocity Micro (which would probably be the best).

To what end though? There's nothing that Dell, HP or Velocity Micro that Apple couldn't do if they wanted to.

I think the idea here would presumably be that they would make cheaper computers that Apple won't make, or other configs (i.e. the long-wished for cheaper midtower for people who don't need a Mac Pro)....... but I think that implies that Apple doesn't make them because they don't have the ability to, and I think it's more a business decision on their part.

I don't think there'd be any real benefit to Apple to have even one or two licensees competing with them.

[Schtumple]

The first time i properly tried out OS X was on my PC....

I downloaded a cracked version of 10.4.6 and bought a Pentium D 2.6ghz specifically to run OS X.

Now i have an iMac, seems to me, using OS X on a PC isn't 100% a bad thing...

[Zadillo]

The first time i properly tried out OS X was on my PC....

I downloaded a cracked version of 10.4.6 and bought a Pentium D 2.6ghz specifically to run OS X.

Now i have an iMac, seems to me, using OS X on a PC isn't 100% a bad thing...

No, granted, an argument can certainly be made that some percentage of people who pirate OS X and install it later turn into Mac buyers.

The problem is that this is seemingly outweighed by a larger majority of people who never actually buy a Mac (or even a copy of OS X, for that matter), and just run it for free on PC hardware.

Granted, this probably isn't having a huge impact overall on Mac sales, and perhaps the long term effect (in terms of people using and learning OS X) will outweigh the negatives, but even so.

-Zadillo

[MikeTheC]

Not to be rude, but you know, I really find it laughable that people here actually think supporting PC hardware is this nightmare scenario for Apple, or that it would be prohibitively expensive to do, thus giving some degree of business-case legitimacy to not selling Mac OS X to anyone.

First off, can you say "Linux"? Linux is a free OS, and yet there is an incredible verisimilitude of drivers in it supporting a fantastic range of hardware. And with a relative handful of exceptions, you don't see this wide-ranging driver support introducing significant stability issues into the platform. And typically those stability issues largely center around multimedia-specific components, particularly 3D mode graphics card support. And of particular irony is that the stability issues are introduced by closed-source drivers from the hardware manufacturers. However, there's already not much for us Mac OS X users to worry about since the hardware manufacturers have already written PPC and x86 drivers for Mac OS X, and they seem to be just fine.

Secondly, your better hardware makers generally write what are called "unified" drivers which support a range of hardware, and especially if Apple is paying them, naturally they'll give us drivers for Mac OS X.

Thirdly, and getting back to Linux for a moment, the overwhelming majority of drivers for Linux are written by the FSF/OSS communities anyhow, so inclusion of them into Mac OS X shouldn't really be much of an issue in a legal sense.

A lot of you either don't know or have forgotten that we largely got rid of Apple-centric, Apple-specific hardware when we switched over to the PREP (PowerPC Reference Platform) standard with the introduction of PowerPC-based Macs in 1994. Ever since, Apple's been streamlining the actual internals of the computers to greater and greater extents (such as with the CHRP -- Common Hardware Reference Platform), NewWorldROM Macs, and now with the switch to the x86 platform, a Mac seems to be little more than a custom-spec'd, firmware-flashed set of PC hardware in an Apple-engineered enclosure.

So, frankly, what's the big deal? The real question we should be asking is what is actually going on here? What's affecting the business case for keeping Mac OS X hardware-limited?

Apple initially introduced iPods with little more than cobbled-together software to make them work on a Mac. They then made a version of iTunes for Mac. And yet, even though Mac owners (clearly) were buying iPods, it wasn't until non-Mac-using computer owners started buying them that the iPod craze began. In fact (and this is a tribute to the tenacity of PC users to use an iPod "no matter what") that it was only through third-party hacks that you could even use an iPod on something other than a Mac.

And as much as it may well irk us Mac-dyed-in-the-wool, drank-the-kool-aid folks, we have Windows users to thank for the success of the iPod. Some might, at the thought of this, think they smell something fishy. Well, believe as you will about that, but clearly PC users are the ones who have driven sales of the iPod, not Mac users.

And then Apple starts to actively and publicly take advantage of the "halo effect". And then Steve Jobs comes out and calls Apple a software company. Yes, I know Apple's still making hardware (and for a number of reasons I hope they continue to do so) but are you not able to draw a line from A to B to C on this one, folks?

There are physically more non-Mac users out there, period. It's a fact of life. Therefore, even if Mac OS X only caught on with a relative minority of PC users, it would still generate far more revenue than if Apple only sold Mac OS X to Mac users.

An earlier poster said that Apple's (theoretical) sale of Mac OS X to anyone would not affect the average person buying a Mac, because the average computer user isn't an enthusiast. They buy a solution. Arguably, those with taste will buy an elegant Apple-engineered computer, as will those who want the status of owning a "Macintosh", but there's an absurd number of people out there who, for reasons practical, technical, or otherwise would never *think* of touching Apple hardware, even though they might drool over the proposition of running Mac OS X on their own hardware. Why in the world should Apple ignore those people?

It's time Apple admits the truth and changes their business case to fit the facts, instead of trying to do the reverse.

[Zadillo]

Not to be rude, but you know, I really find it laughable that people here actually think supporting PC hardware is this nightmare scenario for Apple, or that it would be prohibitively expensive to do, thus giving some degree of business-case legitimacy to not selling Mac OS X to anyone.

First off, can you say "Linux"? Linux is a free OS, and yet there is an incredible verisimilitude of drivers in it supporting a fantastic range of hardware. And with a relative handful of exceptions, you don't see this wide-ranging driver support introducing significant stability issues into the platform. And typically those stability issues largely center around multimedia-specific components, particularly 3D mode graphics card support. And of particular irony is that the stability issues are introduced by closed-source drivers from the hardware manufacturers. However, there's already not much for us Mac OS X users to worry about since the hardware manufacturers have already written PPC and x86 drivers for Mac OS X, and they seem to be just fine.

Secondly, your better hardware makers generally write what are called "unified" drivers which support a range of hardware, and especially if Apple is paying them, naturally they'll give us drivers for Mac OS X.

Thirdly, and getting back to Linux for a moment, the overwhelming majority of drivers for Linux are written by the FSF/OSS communities anyhow, so inclusion of them into Mac OS X shouldn't really be much of an issue in a legal sense.

A lot of you either don't know or have forgotten that we largely got rid of Apple-centric, Apple-specific hardware when we switched over to the PREP (PowerPC Reference Platform) standard with the introduction of PowerPC-based Macs in 1994. Ever since, Apple's been streamlining the actual internals of the computers to greater and greater extents (such as with the CHRP -- Common Hardware Reference Platform), NewWorldROM Macs, and now with the switch to the x86 platform, a Mac seems to be little more than a custom-spec'd, firmware-flashed set of PC hardware in an Apple-engineered enclosure.

So, frankly, what's the big deal? The real question we should be asking is what is actually going on here? What's affecting the business case for keeping Mac OS X hardware-limited?

Apple initially introduced iPods with little more than cobbled-together software to make them work on a Mac. They then made a version of iTunes for Mac. And yet, even though Mac owners (clearly) were buying iPods, it wasn't until non-Mac-using computer owners started buying them that the iPod craze began. In fact (and this is a tribute to the tenacity of PC users to use an iPod "no matter what") that it was only through third-party hacks that you could even use an iPod on something other than a Mac.

And as much as it may well irk us Mac-dyed-in-the-wool, drank-the-kool-aid folks, we have Windows users to thank for the success of the iPod. Some might, at the thought of this, think they smell something fishy. Well, believe as you will about that, but clearly PC users are the ones who have driven sales of the iPod, not Mac users.

And then Apple starts to actively and publicly take advantage of the "halo effect". And then Steve Jobs comes out and calls Apple a software company. Yes, I know Apple's still making hardware (and for a number of reasons I hope they continue to do so) but are you not able to draw a line from A to B to C on this one, folks?

There are physically more non-Mac users out there, period. It's a fact of life. Therefore, even if Mac OS X only caught on with a relative minority of PC users, it would still generate far more revenue than if Apple only sold Mac OS X to Mac users.

An earlier poster said that Apple's (theoretical) sale of Mac OS X to anyone would not affect the average person buying a Mac, because the average computer user isn't an enthusiast. They buy a solution. Arguably, those with taste will buy an elegant Apple-engineered computer, as will those who want the status of owning a "Macintosh", but there's an absurd number of people out there who, for reasons practical, technical, or otherwise would never *think* of touching Apple hardware, even though they might drool over the proposition of running Mac OS X on their own hardware. Why in the world should Apple ignore those people?

It's time Apple admits the truth and changes their business case to fit the facts, instead of trying to do the reverse.

First, your timing is wrong. iTunes came before the iPod. It was originally SoundJam, and also originally released as a Mac OS 9 only app (although the OS X version came soon after). iTunes came out at Macworld in January 2001, and the iPod came out in October 2001. There was never a time when Mac users had to use anything besides iTunes. I think you might have it confused with the original availability of iPods for PC's, which had to use MusicMatch Jukebox originally, before iTunes for Windows came out.

Regarding your general point; the fundamental point you are ignoring is that Apple IS still a hardware company. They make a lot of their profit selling entire systems.

You seem to be arguing that if Apple sold Mac OS X box copies alone, they would somehow make more revenue, even to a small fraction of PC users, than they do selling entire Macs right now.

Can you back that up though? Seriously, have you done the math to support your argument? How many Mac OS X licenses would Apple need to sell each year to make up for the loss in Mac sales?

Exactly which hardware would they support? You mentioned Linux, but it's not like Apple can just use a bunch of Linux drivers and be done with it.

When someone wants to buy a copy of OS X and install it on the $399 eMachines PC they bought at Best Buy, what will happen? Can Apple provide the same experience with it? Can they be sure of the experience people will get with that hardware?

Seriously, there are a lot of issues involved with this, both from a technical perspective and a business perspective.

The business perspective though is the big kicker, and the part you really glossed over. You simply asserted that Apple would generate much more revenue selling OS X licenses than they do right now, but I don't see any evidence to back up your assertion.

Of course there's a hybrid model, where they continue making and selling Macs, and also selling OS X, but there's still a lot of unknowns with this model too.

But I think you are making it sound way too simple, like Apple could just start selling boxed copies of OS X, and they'd sell a ton of copies, and it would all go smoothly from a business perspective and a technical perspective, and I am not so sure that can be backed up.

-Zadillo

[MikeTheC]

Zadillo:

Perhaps, but then again changing one's perceptions is never without some degree of pain.

Consider...

Apple, under their current business plan, sells hardware because they have to. Now, it's true that they may simultaneously want to, but that's irrelevant because, from their business plan, in order to sell you Mac OS X (which they want), they have to sell you a computer that it can run on.

I'm going to make some numbers up. Now, they're liable to be not super accurate, but I still feel they illustrate a genuine point.

Let's say that it costs Apple $50 million dollars to produce a "whole decimal" release of Mac OS X. So 10.0 cost $50 million, 10.1 was $50 million, and so forth.

Now, if Apple were to sell one million copies for $50 each, they'd break even, and then every copy thereafter would, for sake of argument, be gravy. Right? Follow me?

Now, let's say that it costs Apple $100 per every computer they make. Again, they probably all cost more than that, and some considerably more, but that's not the point. I'm just trying to keep this simple.

So, in order for Apple to sell you Mac OS X (think of it as the "payload"), they have to sell you $100 in addition before they can sell you the $50 copy of Mac OS X. In other words, it costs them triple the amount to sell you Mac OS X than it would otherwise if they just could sell it for any computer. And remember, this is a cost that's completely under Apple's control.

The big fear that's always permeated these discussions has been one of Apple cannibalizing their hardware sales if they opened Mac OS X to anyone. But that fear is predicated on the assumption that Apple is merely selling hardware because they choose to be in the hardware business. Remember, they've put themselves in the position of being raped on hardware sales only because they're forcing themselves to sell you hardware so you have the capability of buying (meaning that you would have the capability of using, and therefore the inherent justification of purchase) their payload.

If Apple were simply to sell Mac OS X without such forcing, they'd be able to make money with 1/3 or less the present expense in doing so. Or, in other words, they would stand to triple or better their profit by getting rid of the hardware requirement.

Yes, there'd be pirated copies of Mac OS X. But there's always been pirated copies of Mac OS, even among the community that Apple has walled themselves into having the business ability to sell to.

The corollary to this is that there will also always be people out there willing to buy Apple computer hardware, and that's just fine. Apple can charge what they want, within the limits of what the market will bear, for those who want the status or other perceived benefit of actual Apple hardware. But in the meantime, they'd also be selling copies of Mac OS X to a lot more people, all of whom by definition have no choice but to pirate a copy of Mac OS X for purposes of running it on non-Apple hardware.

Apple complains about DRM having negative purchasing implications in the music business, but there's a comparative reality in play here within the OS platform world, and it's one that Apple dare not ignore, particularly in light of Linux's growing adoption by not just tech-savvy people but also lower income people, those living in third-world countries, and so on. Between that and the adoption of (to say nothing of adaptation for) China and India, Linux is going to make Microsoft and Apple look like insignificant minority players.

[Zadillo]

Mike, all fair points (not necessary to get into the minutiae of the financial numbers, other than to say that I think some fairly big assumptions are being made about the cost to develop OS X and the profit Apple would make from selling OS X box copies).

As for Linux; Linux has its strengths, and yes, certainly, in many parts of the world it could easily become a dominant OS.

But I think we're talking about more long term effects here, and it's impossible to say what Apple's roadmap is 5-10 years from now.

[MikeTheC]

And as far as still utilizing their hardware as a payload, besides providing high-fashion, high-end systems, Apple also has a potentially very lucrative server market. Now, it's not as big as IBM's, HP's or Dell's market right now, but I'm certain with the proper motivation Steve can muscle his way into it.

[MikeTheC]

Mike, all fair points (not necessary to get into the minutiae of the financial numbers, other than to say that I think some fairly big assumptions are being made about the cost to develop OS X and the profit Apple would make from selling OS X box copies).

As for Linux; Linux has its strengths, and yes, certainly, in many parts of the world it could easily become a dominant OS.

But I think we're talking about more long term effects here, and it's impossible to say what Apple's roadmap is 5-10 years from now.

Oh, certainly. But then again you'd have to agree that, if Apple is really smart, they're planning out at least that far, Mr. Jobs' All Things D claim of "not knowing what's coming" notwithstanding.

However, we have to overcome this Apple-centric view we often have here. No matter what Apple does, Microsoft continues to exist and they are doing what they are doing, and likewise the FSF/OSS communities will continue to do what they will do. Apple is part of a continuum (and they always have been).

[Zadillo]

Oh, certainly. But then again you'd have to agree that, if Apple is really smart, they're planning out at least that far, Mr. Jobs' All Things D claim of "not knowing what's coming" notwithstanding.

However, we have to overcome this Apple-centric view we often have here. No matter what Apple does, Microsoft continues to exist and they are doing what they are doing, and likewise the FSF/OSS communities will continue to do what they will do. Apple is part of a continuum (and they always have been).

Yup, I agree. I think the thing is, Apple does see themselves as an entire solution company, selling their entire system - hardware, software, combined.

Personally, I don't think Apple is in such a bad place right now.

I don't think it would be impossible for Apple to sell "Mac OS X for PC's" (ignoring any business issues there such as how MS would respond to it, etc.).

I'll even grant the possibility that Apple could do just fine selling "Mac OS X for PC's" and selling complete Mac systems alongside it.

The question then becomes, once you get past all that, whether Apple wants to get in that business. Do they want to just sell the OS to a bunch of people?

To some degree, I imagine that Apple would love to have a situation where OS X gained 20-30% marketshare, as a combination of Macs + people running OS X on other PC's.

I'd even go so far as to say that Jobs probably would love the idea of people replacing Windows with OS X on their PC's.

The thing is, I'm just not sure Apple wants to be in that business. I think that things work out for them pretty well as it is, selling just complete Mac systems, getting more into consumer electronics, etc.

If this was about the "OS wars", and Apple needed to gain a bunch of OS marketshare from Windows and Linux, I could see it, but I just don't think it's as much of a necessity.

I think Windows, Linux and OS X all serve their purpose in the market.

I wouldn't be surprised to see things change (I think Apple has shown plenty of willingness to make pretty big changes, like the Intel switch), but I think there has to be a motivating factor for those changes.

There has to be a compelling reason.

[MikeTheC]

Ok, well then, let me ask you: What would you propose as a compelling reason ?

[Zadillo]

Ok, well then, let me ask you: What would you propose as a compelling reason ?

I think the main compelling reason (beyond the obvious, to get more Mac users) would be to increase overall marketshare to make Mac OS X a more attractive platform to develop for.

The biggest issue for the Mac has always been that the userbase is so relatively small that many companies just can't justify devoting resources to developing Mac OS X apps.

If Apple could know that they could significantly increase the OS X userbase by selling a PC version, thus making it a more attractive platform for developers, it would directly benefit Mac users and Apple itself.

The other compelling reason would probably be to have a more direct "halo" effect. User buys PC, has Windows on it, doesn't like it - they can't afford to buy a whole new Mac, but they're curious enough to spend $129 to buy OS X and see what it's like. They like OS X so much that the next computer they purchase is a Mac from Apple (essentially a more direct version of the idea that someone buys an iPod, likes it so much that they want the whole Apple experience with a Mac).

Personally I think the "Mac mini" is the closest thing Apple has done to this; a tiny almost iPod-esque mini Mac, priced pretty cheaply, and a low-cost way to get into the world of OS X. Not the same as "OS X for PC's", but not that far off either.

Lastly, Apple could perhaps "pull a Sega", and become a software-only company - model themselves after Microsoft. License OS X to vendors, sell it as a standalone OS...... sell OS X and Windows versions of iLife, iWork, Final Cut (just as MS sells both Windows and Mac versions of Office).

-Zadillo

[MikeTheC]

Ok, two separate thoughts here:

Zadillo:

One thing to try to keep in mind is that Apple is already positioning themselves as a content/technology company, a la Sony. You'll remember they've already dropped the "Computer" word from their company name. Now Steve calls them a "software" company.

What exactly does this suggest to you?


FredG:

Actually, I use a hodge-podge of software from different vendors. Here's a breakdown by vendor:

Apple: Mac OS X, SimpleText, DVD Player, iTunes.

Opera Software ASA: Opera

VideoLAN: VLC

Microsoft: Entourage

Adobe: InDesign, GoLive

So, to be honest, nobody's strategy has dominance on any of my computers.

[Zadillo]

Ok, two separate thoughts here:

Zadillo:

One thing to try to keep in mind is that Apple is already positioning themselves as a content/technology company, a la Sony. You'll remember they've already dropped the "Computer" word from their company name. Now Steve calls them a "software" company.

What exactly does this suggest to you?

I think you're reading perhaps too much into both of these statements.

Dropping the "Computer" from the company reflects the fact that Apple is more than just a computer company; the iPod, the iPhone, AppleTV, etc....... these are all different types of devices. It doesn't mean Apple is going to stop making computers (not to mention that the iPhone and AppleTV are essentially special-purpose computers anyway). It just means they are broadening the brand.

Regarding Jobs calling Apple a "software" company; I'd have to see the context of the quote, but if it's like other similar quotes, I think you might be misinterpreting it as well. It doesn't mean Apple is ONLY a software company, or even primarily a software company (a la Microsoft).

What I think it means, and what Jobs normally means when he says this, is that software is a vital component of what Apple does. The Mac is nothing without OS X; the iPhone is just as much about the software that powers it than the hardware itself; the iPod wouldn't be the same thing without iTunes.

This doesn't mean Apple is focusing solely on software - clearly they are still making a variety of different types of hardware. In fact, they've expanded their hardware scope to different types of devices, not gotten out of the hardware game.

-Zadillo

[MikeTheC]

Zadillo:

Some last thoughts before I take off for work.

I'm not saying Apple intends to abandon hardware. They couldn't do that and continue to make iPods, AppleTVs and so forth. However, my point is that they are already psychologically, as a company, gearing up for business strategies which they have not previously embraced, and I think that one of those is the unbundling of Mac OS X from Apple computer hardware.

[LethalWolfe]

One thing to try to keep in mind is that Apple is already positioning themselves as a content/technology company, a la Sony. You'll remember they've already dropped the "Computer" word from their company name. Now Steve calls them a "software" company.


I couldn't be wrong because I don't follow every word Steve says, but I've never heard him refer to Apple as a "software" company (implying that that's their main business). He said "computer" was dropped because Apple makes more than just computers.

I think you might be underestimating the "discounting" Apple sells it's software for to attract people to the Mac platform (which of course would disappear if you no long needed to buy a Mac to run the apps). For example, Final Cut Studio 2 is around $30,000-$35,000 worth of software Apple sells for $1299. When Apple bought Shake a few years ago they immediately dropped the price from $10k to $5k and now it's just $499. If Apple licensed OS X to other computer makers I don't think they'd be able to price their software anywhere close to the current levels because they'd no longer have the hardware sales to support it.


Lethal

[Zadillo]

Zadillo:

Some last thoughts before I take off for work.

I'm not saying Apple intends to abandon hardware. They couldn't do that and continue to make iPods, AppleTVs and so forth. However, my point is that they are already psychologically, as a company, gearing up for business strategies which they have not previously embraced, and I think that one of those is the unbundling of Mac OS X from Apple computer hardware.

I can acknowledge that at least the steps Apple has taken at least have paved the way for that decision to be made.

What I question is whether they actually want to do that.

[2ndPath]

I think you might be underestimating the "discounting" Apple sells it's software for to attract people to the Mac platform (which of course would disappear if you no long needed to buy a Mac to run the apps). For example, Final Cut Studio 2 is around $30,000-$35,000 worth of software Apple sells for $1299. When Apple bought Shake a few years ago they immediately dropped the price from $10k to $5k and now it's just $499. If Apple licensed OS X to other computer makers I don't think they'd be able to price their software anywhere close to the current levels because they'd no longer have the hardware sales to support it.

How do you get a number like $30,000-$35,000? I know it is not so easy to determine the actual worth of Software but the price it is sold for is usually strongly influenced by the market. Prices on these software products used to be high, because they had no competition up to some point and were only bought by a small number of customers. So the reason for the prices dropping is not that Apple recovers the difference by selling hardware but that market changes with time.

[macEfan]

As nice as it would be to run os X on cheap pcs, I still think apple should sue them if they start selling software that lets people run OS X on generic pcees.

[wellofsouls]

I'm also sure that OS X won't run as well on Dells and HPs because of the difference in hardware (video cards, sound boards, etc)

It may not run as well on those pre-built Dells and HPs budget PCs, but it will run much better on a enthusiast DIY rig, since nowadays a Mac is nothing but a pre-built PC with Intel CPU(s) and ATI/nVidia Graphics card(s) and generic onboard audio.

[bplein]

Zadillo:

Some last thoughts before I take off for work.

I'm not saying Apple intends to abandon hardware. They couldn't do that and continue to make iPods, AppleTVs and so forth. However, my point is that they are already psychologically, as a company, gearing up for business strategies which they have not previously embraced, and I think that one of those is the unbundling of Mac OS X from Apple computer hardware.

I think bringing in your Linux comparisons are, well, just misplaced.

Opening up Mac OS X (not necessarily "Open" as in Open Source, but "open" as in legally allowed to run on more hardware) would reduce the "Mac Experience" to the same hit-and-miss that people have with Windows and Linux.

Yes, many distributions of Linux work nicely out of the box on a variety of hardware. Linux distributions have, for the most part, gotten away from the days where they installed a lot of icons for programs that weren't even installed. It's gotten away, for the most part, from requiring fiddling with X configs just to get a decent desktop.

But the problem with that openness is that end users who just want to run their software and do the things their brother/sister/father/mother/friend do, won't be able to do it unless they go buy the same hardware that their brother/sister/father/mother/friend have bought.

Oh, can't do bluetooth? Sorry, you didn't buy a compatible BT card. Video? Did you check the compatibility matrix? Wireless-N? But I thought everything that worked on Linux was working on Apple, can't I just use the madwifi compatible one I bought last week?

Then these users throw up their arms, and say "wow... all the same issues I had on Vista because of missing drivers... and no shoot-em-up games? Macs suck!" Apple has to grow their support team 10-fold, and in the end they are losing money because the first 1-hour call eats up the profit on their $150 operating system.

With today's model, a Leopard CD will install on any/all of the hardware supported. No additional driver downloads necessary.

Installing Windows Server 2003, however, on a Dell PE1950 requires a special linux-based boot cd that you must have to force the install onto the internal SATA drive, because Windows doesn't ship with the Dell SAS chipset drivers. Guess what? Dell will sell you the PE1950 without a floppy. Meaning there is no way to bypass the Dell installation CD that preps your hard drive for you. It's easier to do a boot-from-SAN Fibre Channel installation on the Dell PE1950 than a native Windows install to the internal hard drive. THAT is not the world I want my Mac experience shifting over to. And I don't want the stability of the base OS compromised because of over zealous efforts to support more hardware.

No thank you. I run Windows (at home and at work), and Linux and FreeBSD. All of them have their place (well, I'm still trying to think of the place for Linux, but that's my BSD bias showing up).

[bplein]

It may not run as well on those pre-built Dells and HPs budget PCs, but it will run much better on a enthusiast DIY rig, since nowadays a Mac is nothing but a pre-built PC with Intel CPU(s) and ATI/nVidia Graphics card(s) and generic onboard audio.

I tried out a Hackintosh install on my enthusiasts rig (well, it was an enthusiasts rig at one time!)

AMD dual core, NVidia graphics, add-on sound. First of all, the drivers for the graphics sucked, after struggling to make them work. The sound was functional, but didn't sound as good as my MBP (which supports 5.1 optical out). The mouse was "gritty", and I couldn't make it operate smoothly.

All of the above could be rectified by good drivers. Who is going to enforce that every vendor of every part make good drivers for an "open" OS X? NOBODY. In order to build a good system, you'd have to hunt through every forum, do tons of research, and pick only the right parts, and hope that your research was good.

And your mom is going to want you to build one for her too, and support her. Gonna let her do Software Update on her own with a hackintosh? Don't think so...