Will Mac sell an OS to compete with windows

[Mozze]

I have wondered this for years but I hope someone knows the answer why doesn't Mac release an OS to install on anyones home built PC? Mac OS X is nice looking and seems to me a better choice than Vista. I just don't see why they don't do this. Mac cries about only having a very small market but to me it seems to be their own fault, Seriously why have they not done this?

Will Mac sell an OS to compete with windows

[Teh Don Ditty]

Ummm OS X competes with Windows.

[mduser63]

Who's Mac?

[suneohair]

Hmm. I don't think Apple cries about its market share. If you have some data that says otherwise I would like to see it.

Simply put, OS X is better and more reliable because it is limited to Apple computers.

THey haven't done it, because they make money on the hardware. That is what they are in business for.

[Mozze]

Ummm OS X competes with Windows.

So your telling me I can go out and buy an ASUS MOBO and an Opteron X2 chip and some ram a HDD get a couple of SLi video cards buy OSX and it will install and run like a Mac PRO?

[Teh Don Ditty]

So your telling me I can go out and buy an ASUS MOBO and an Opteron X2 chip and some ram a HDD get a couple of SLi video cards buy OSX and it will install and run like a Mac PRO?

You answered your own (original) question.

EDIT: Psst. See this thread (http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=270300)

[Mozze]

Hmm. I don't think Apple cries about its market share. If you have some data that says otherwise I would like to see it.

Simply put, OS X is better and more reliable because it is limited to Apple computers.

THey haven't done it, because they make money on the hardware. That is what they are in business for.

Thank you for that answer. I wondered if it was for that or if they had some other reasoning.

[GFLPraxis]

Thank you for that answer. I wondered if it was for that or if they had some other reasoning.


Two simple reasons;

1) The Mac OS has a lot less issues than Windows because, quite simply, it's running on a limited set of hardware. Apple knows exactly what machines it will be running on and has appropriate drivers preloaded for everything. It's much easier for them to manage. Opening it up to all the various peices of hardware, different processors, BIOSes, etc on the market would create all sorts of issues for Apple to support; right now, Macs don't even use a BIOS.

2) Apple is a hardware company. Releasing Mac OS X for every PC would cannibalize their hardware sales.

[gnasher729]

1) The Mac OS has a lot less issues than Windows because, quite simply, it's running on a limited set of hardware. Apple knows exactly what machines it will be running on and has appropriate drivers preloaded for everything. It's much easier for them to manage. Opening it up to all the various peices of hardware, different processors, BIOSes, etc on the market would create all sorts of issues for Apple to support; right now, Macs don't even use a BIOS.

2) Apple is a hardware company. Releasing Mac OS X for every PC would cannibalize their hardware sales.

I think Apple would have no problem whatsoever getting MacOS X running on about any modern PC. However, your point (2) is absolutely right: I don't think the number of sales of MacOS X would grow too much, and for every two sales of MacOS X or even less Apple would lose one sale of a Macintosh. Most stupid move possible for Apple.

[Erasmus]

I don't get this argument. So many people (ie. The Inquirer :rolleyes: ) expect Apple to release OSX for running on generic Dell type PCs. The only thing I can think of is that they like the operating system, but want to custom build their own computers, and so claim that Apple would do well to open their OS to any computer, which is clearly equivalent to a large, dead bull.

Apple don't care how many computers run OSX. Apple really couldn't care if half the people who bought Macs installed boot camp and Windows on their computers, and ignored OSX. Apple is a hardware company. Microsoft is a Software company. This is clear when you look at the prices of the operating systems. I can get OSX for about AU$130 (or whatever it is Edu), while the upgrade from XP to Vista Ultimate, really the only way to get a system with most of the features of Tiger, costs like AU$500, or something absolutely rediculous. Similarly, we can see that Microsoft DO care about how many people use their operating system, with Vista's limits on use with Virtualisation, and the fact you can only buy an XP upgrade, or a pack of Vista licences, which effectively leaves Mac users in the cold, unless they buy XP first, or more realistically and more likely, get their hands on a pirated version of XP.

Apple WILL NOT open OSX to generic, non-Mac PCs. EVER.

[petvas]

I don't get this argument. So many people (ie. The Inquirer :rolleyes: ) expect Apple to release OSX for running on generic Dell type PCs. The only thing I can think of is that they like the operating system, but want to custom build their own computers, and so claim that Apple would do well to open their OS to any computer, which is clearly equivalent to a large, dead bull.

Apple don't care how many computers run OSX. Apple really couldn't care if half the people who bought Macs installed boot camp and Windows on their computers, and ignored OSX. Apple is a hardware company. Microsoft is a Software company. This is clear when you look at the prices of the operating systems. I can get OSX for about AU$130 (or whatever it is Edu), while the upgrade from XP to Vista Ultimate, really the only way to get a system with most of the features of Tiger, costs like AU$500, or something absolutely rediculous. Similarly, we can see that Microsoft DO care about how many people use their operating system, with Vista's limits on use with Virtualisation, and the fact you can only buy an XP upgrade, or a pack of Vista licences, which effectively leaves Mac users in the cold, unless they buy XP first, or more realistically and more likely, get their hands on a pirated version of XP.

Apple WILL NOT open OSX to generic, non-Mac PCs. EVER.

Never say never!

[clevin]

I don't get this argument. So many people (ie. The Inquirer :rolleyes: ) expect Apple to release OSX for running on generic Dell type PCs. The only thing I can think of is that they like the operating system, but want to custom build their own computers, and so claim that Apple would do well to open their OS to any computer, which is clearly equivalent to a large, dead bull.

Apple don't care how many computers run OSX. Apple really couldn't care if half the people who bought Macs installed boot camp and Windows on their computers, and ignored OSX. Apple is a hardware company. Microsoft is a Software company. This is clear when you look at the prices of the operating systems. I can get OSX for about AU$130 (or whatever it is Edu), while the upgrade from XP to Vista Ultimate, really the only way to get a system with most of the features of Tiger, costs like AU$500, or something absolutely rediculous. Similarly, we can see that Microsoft DO care about how many people use their operating system, with Vista's limits on use with Virtualisation, and the fact you can only buy an XP upgrade, or a pack of Vista licences, which effectively leaves Mac users in the cold, unless they buy XP first, or more realistically and more likely, get their hands on a pirated version of XP.

Apple WILL NOT open OSX to generic, non-Mac PCs. EVER.

too many ppl mistakenly think they know exactly what apple is, and to be frank, i dont think u know what apple will "never" do

[Spock]

Similarly, we can see that Microsoft DO care about how many people use their operating system, with Vista's limits on use with Virtualisation, and the fact you can only buy an XP upgrade, or a pack of Vista licences, which effectively leaves Mac users in the cold, unless they buy XP first, or more realistically and more likely, get their hands on a pirated version of XP.

What??

:confused:

[synth3tik]

A problem with Windows and sadly Linux too, is that there is not control over both hardware and software. The reason OS X can kick so much more ass is the integration of both hardware and software. Vista is suffering from all these incompatibilities for that reason. MS does not have control over the hardware.

[Erasmus]

What??

:confused:

Hmmm...

Re-reading that paragraph left even me confused.

Just ignore it. What I meant is Microsoft are doing their bit to make it difficult to run Vista on macs, so people go and buy PCs instead, and so don't ever use Mac OSX, and hence don't switch.

I am usually the sort of person who refuses to use the word "never", but in this case, I think it's pretty safe.

In terms of saying Apple is a hardware company, in the keynote, just before Steve told us the company was now to be known as just "Apple inc." mentioned four things to demonstrate that Apple wasn't just a computer company. Those things were the Mac, the :apple:TV, the iPod, and the iPhone. No mention of software. Apple makes money on hardware, not software, and so opening OSX to any old, crappy, computer would have to be one of the worst things Apple could do to themselves.

Of course, it may be beneficial for Apple to release old versions of OSX for generic PCs, but that's different.

[Dont Hurt Me]

By not marketing their OS Apple has painted themself into a corner where new Macs must run windows. Its that simple. when you have 5% marketshare who wants to develope anything for your little tiny itsy bisty market, Look at Mac gaming,Video cards or Tv tuners for Mac and its pathetic. Apple is Silly for not selling their best product. Mac OSX is their best product in my view.

[SMM]

By not marketing their OS Apple has painted themself into a corner where new Macs must run windows. Its that simple. when you have 5% marketshare who wants to develope anything for your little tiny itsy bisty market, Look at Mac gaming,Video cards or Tv tuners for Mac and its pathetic. Apple is Silly for not selling their best product. Mac OSX is their best product in my view.

I really enjoy your political commentary and agree with almost all of it. I do not share your views on this, however, starting with "It's that simple". There is nothing simple about it.

Others have made more compelling points for Apple not doing this. I can summarize my opinion as "Now, is definitely not the time to do it". Let me explain.

Apple has a lot of momentum right now, and it is escalating. However, they have not yet reached a point where they have a safe base. They have been bloodied in their battles with the MS empire. But, unlike so many other competitors, they survived. They have also learned a great deal. This time they have rejoined the fight smarter and richer. Apple's diversification has given them revenue streams they did not have before. They do not have to solely depend on any one particular technology to prosper and grow. They have the capital to fund R & D, hire the best and most creative. The numbers do not lie. They are wining. But, it is a long road and much still needs to happen.

There is an old saying (and many spin-offs), "When you are wining, do not make mistakes". If Apple were to suddenly double their orders for the Mac line, they could not handle it. Deliveries would get pushed out to unacceptable timeframes. They would have to create shortcuts on the fly, these would almost assuredly cause more headaches. The PR aftermath would be a nightmare. The same situation holds true for offering OSX to the entire PC world. There are way to many variables (as others have mentioned), which could severely tarnish the reputation of the world's best desktop OS.

Growth has to be strategically planned and carefully managed. So far, Apple is doing a very good job with it. They know the situation a heck of a lot better than we do. I think we should cut them some slack and not presume we could be running the show better.

[smartalic34]

By not marketing their OS Apple has painted themself into a corner where new Macs must run windows. Its that simple. when you have 5% marketshare who wants to develope anything for your little tiny itsy bisty market, Look at Mac gaming,Video cards or Tv tuners for Mac and its pathetic. Apple is Silly for not selling their best product. Mac OSX is their best product in my view.

I think Apple will emphasize the superiority of Mac OS X when 10.5 Leopard is released this spring.

[Eric5h5]

Apple is Silly for not selling their best product.

Apple is silly for wanting to stay in business? Here's a secret: software never wears out. Hardware does. Microsoft may have a gazillion dollars now, but you can plainly see they're already having to resort to increasingly draconian measures to keep people on the upgrade treadmill. Because that's the only way to stay in business if all you do is software: find ways to keep people buying your product over and over again. Eventually you add all the features that anyone would need, and then what? Even though XP's not that great, it's apparently "good enough" for a lot of people and there's been more resistance to upgrading than MS was expecting. (The exception here is games. You always need more content in that case.)

On the other hand, you'll always need to buy a new computer sooner or later. Even if you don't care about advancing technology, eventually it will wear out or break. In the long run, what's a more sustainable business model? Apple isn't run by someone who just looks at what might work over the next year or two....

--Eric

[Dont Hurt Me]

I appreciate the responses though I still think Apple could make a fortune by selling say a two year old version of its OS for PC use in order to grab needed marketshare. Maybe even a cleaned up 10.1

[smartalic34]

I appreciate the responses though I still think Apple could make a fortune by selling say a two year old version of its OS for PC use in order to grab needed marketshare. Maybe even a cleaned up 10.1

I really wouldn't call it needed marketshare. Apple is doing just fine with their 5% or so. Successful companies don't necessarily need to be marketshare leaders (see BMW in cars, Verizon in cell phones, or Nikon in digital cameras).

[Sun Baked]

I really wouldn't call it needed marketshare. Apple is doing just fine with their 5% or so. Successful companies don't necessarily need to be marketshare leaders (see BMW in cars, Verizon in cell phones, or Nikon in digital cameras).

Yes, they are also likely the hottest PC hardware growth prospect in the world market.

So while they don't need marketshare, they will likely get it as they expand their product offerings -- and improve their PC product depth.

They don't need to compete on price and enter the $99 desktop PC or $299 laptop PC market to steal marketshare either.

All they have to do is make the iMac a desktop-based unit and release a consumer and gaming tower to get a bunch of people jumping over the fence.

While magazines are focused on the iPhone/iPod as "the future" -- the Apple PC business is rather healthy again.

No need to switch from selling $1000 PC to a $99 OS.

[jessica.]

**** I hope so!

[Erasmus]

The only reason why people would want Apple to release OSX for generic PCs is to run OSX on hardware of their choosing (obviously).

Any idea that Apple would benefit from this is ill-advised.

The people would probably benefit in the short term from this, for example we could buy a massive PC case, stick in a 2.66 Kentsfield, two X2900XTXes in Crossfire, 4GB of 1.33Ghz RAM, and a couple of 10,000RPM HDD's in RAID, and then shove both Mac OS 10.5 and Vista Ultimate on it for the most awesome of awesome gaming computers ever.

I'm sure it would kill Apple though.

I think the only way Apple could do it is to as I said before, open up say 10.2 for anyone, and sell it for say US$49. This should create an "OSX Halo Effect" convincing people to buy Macs to get the latest of Apple's OSes. Or, it could cause people to just be content with 10.2, and would kill both Apple, and seriously damage Microsoft.

[Spock]

I think the only way Apple could do it is to as I said before, open up say 10.2 for anyone, and sell it for say US$49. This should create an "OSX Halo Effect" convincing people to buy Macs to get the latest of Apple's OSes. Or, it could cause people to just be content with 10.2, and would kill both Apple, and seriously damage Microsoft.

I think this would hurt Apple even more, if I buy a Dell and put a OS X on it and lets say my video card does not work right and it skips a little, if I have never used a Mac how am I supposed to know that Apple hardware will be any better?

[Erasmus]

I think this would hurt Apple even more, if I buy a Dell and put a OS X on it and lets say my video card does not work right and it skips a little, if I have never used a Mac how am I supposed to know that Apple hardware will be any better?

Well, I am assuming that with enabling OSX to run on BIOS based PCs that Apple either writes drivers for extra stuff (unlikely), helps others write drivers for OSX (more likely), or somehow makes either a mini-Parallels program just for drivers, or a conversion tool to turn Windows drivers for 3rd party hardware into drivers for "Open-OSX".

It wouldn't be as stable as OSX is now, but it would be more stable than Windows. And of course it would be Mac OSX.

[Cult Follower]

I think they like their current tactics, and will continue selling osx soley on macs.

[Erasmus]

I think they like their current tactics, and will continue selling osx soley on macs.

I agree, but it's interesting to think about.

At them moment, Macs can run more software than any other computer. Let's keep it that way, eh?

[yg17]

I don't think Apple should sell a fully featured OS for PCs, it would kill off hardware sales.

What they should do is offer a free, downloadable trial of OSX that runs on any PC. Make it only run for X days, and bastardize it so its not completely usable as a permanent OS (so people don't crack or reinstall) but leave enough in there to show off OSX's features and convince people to switch.

Of course, so people don't have to partition and mess with boot loaders, perhaps make it run in a virtualized environment. I also remember back in the day BeOS, which was installed within Windows and then when you launched a program in Windows, it would reboot your machine and into BeOS, and another reboot would bring you back to Windows. That would work too

[SteveG4Cube]

What they should do is offer a free, downloadable trial of OSX that runs on any PC. Make it only run for X days, and bastardize it so its not completely usable as a permanent OS (so people don't crack or reinstall) but leave enough in there to show off OSX's features and convince people to switch.

Better yet, make an online virtual desktop of OSX like M$ did with Vista (can't find the link, not sure if it's still on their site).

[2ndPath]

I think the only way Apple could do it is to as I said before, open up say 10.2 for anyone, and sell it for say US$49. This should create an "OSX Halo Effect" convincing people to buy Macs to get the latest of Apple's OSes. Or, it could cause people to just be content with 10.2, and would kill both Apple, and seriously damage Microsoft.

This would be worse for Apple than offering the current version of OSX. First of all, the work to get 10.2 to run on a current PC hardware is probably much bigger than for 10.4, because 10.2 was only running under "lab"-conditions on Intel-chips. The second thing is, that Apple couldn't sell their other software to the people who bought this version of 10.2 because their other software often requires a newer version of the OS. So they would lose potential sales here. And selling software is part of their business as well.

Which might be even worse would be the fact that 3rd party software developers will accept the fact that there are a lot of people who can't upgrade. To not cut out these users, they will refrain from using the features provided by newer versions of the OS. The would reduce the incentive for Mac owners to upgrade to newer OS X versions.

So if they offer OS X for generic PCs or license it to selected PC manufacturers, offering the current version would likely be better.

[mklos]

I appreciate the responses though I still think Apple could make a fortune by selling say a two year old version of its OS for PC use in order to grab needed marketshare. Maybe even a cleaned up 10.1

You make absolutely no sense in saying that.....

First of all, why the hell would Apple release an OS to the rest of the world that doesn't work with nearly any software/hardware released for OS X today? It doesn't have nearly any of the features of the current OS. People will buy it, and figure out that they can't do what they expected to do, which is what current Mac users do. So they'll say its crap and go back to Windows. I don't think its Apple's motive to get Windows users to switch by re-releasing a 5 yr old OS to them. Business 101 says thats a very stupid idea and would only give Apple a big black eye. Thats like Microsoft developing Windows 98SE for Mac users to use natively on their PPC/Intel Macs instead of making Vista work bug free with it. Makes, no sense!!! All you're going to do by making a lesser OS X version is make software/hardware developers spend MORE money on the OS X platform to make their apps compatible with this lesser PC version of OS X.

Second, why do we all love OS X? Why? Is it because it looks pretty, ummm probably not! Is it because it because its more compatible with Windows, umm maybe, but were still not there! Is it because the damn OS just works, BINGO! Now why does it "just work"? Is it because Apple makes damn good hardware, ummm no! Yes, they do make damn good hardware but thats not really what makes OS X what it is. What makes OS X what it is today is the fact that Apple controls what hardware its installed into. If it were developed to be installed into any PC, it would have compatibility problems just like Windows does, though not as severe. It would have more problems developing major updates (dot releases ie. OS X.5) as it would have to make sure it works with the rest of the world's hardware.

Third, how is Apple going to keep updating the OS for Windows users if they were to do so? Are they just going to keep adding little tiny features every 12 months and 3 yrs from now Exposé FINALLY makes it into the PC version of OS X? Is that any way to treat a customer and potientially make them switch to a full blown Mac? Heck no!

I still don't see why people are complaining about OS X apps. There are thousands and thouands of OS X apps out there. Just because you can't go to Wal-Mart and get it, doesn't mean they aren't out there. Is this Apple's fault, yes and no, but its mainly up to the people who develop the software to market it, not Apple. Its not Apple's job to market Scrabble, or Photoshop, its up to whoever made it. So if Macsoft does't want to sell Scrabble for Mac in Wal-Mart, its their loss. Also, every software developer who develops OS X software is making a profit. If they weren't then they would stop developing the software. Every company is business to make money and they aren't going to develop and sell something at a loss for very long, if at all. Obviously since more and more Mac apps are being released, developers are seeing the benefits of making OS X software.

Now, what should Apple do? They should just keep doing what they're doing. Maybe eventually they should lower prices a little if anything. But, they're gaining more and more people everyday. More and more software developers are joining the OS X bandwagon and the company is on its way up. You must remember that Apple is NOT A SOFTWARE COMPANY!!!! Also APPLE IS NOT A WHITEBOX COMPUTER COMPANY!!!! Its not what the Mac is all about and anyone who truly knows about Macs knows this. And the day Apple becomes a whitebox company is the death of their own company. They may start selling more copies of OS X, and/or more pieces of hardware, but a Mac will never be what its supposed to be ever again...

Apple's revenues and profits come from hardware NOT software! The iPod, Macintosh, and the coming iPhone are all hardware that bring in around 75+% of Apple's revenues and profits. So spending hundreds of millions of dollars in R&D for a lesser OS X version for PC users is only going to waste away Apple's cash reserves and just make software developers and end users hate Apple.

Bottom line.... If you want to use OS X, buy a Mac!

[Old Mac Geezer]

I have wondered this for years but I hope someone knows the answer why doesn't Mac release an OS to install on anyones home built PC? Mac OS X is nice looking and seems to me a better choice than Vista. I just don't see why they don't do this. Mac cries about only having a very small market but to me it seems to be their own fault, Seriously why have they not done this?

Will Mac sell an OS to compete with windows

It won't happen. Apple is a hardware company as well as a software company. If they released OS X that could be used on any cheap PC, they would would be out of business on the hardware end because nobody would have any reason to buy a Mac. Apple's business model forever has always been that the OS be closely integrated with the hardware and limiting configurations. If they had to support every piece of new and legacy hardware out there, OS X would become as bloated as Winblows.

[mklos]

I don't think Apple should sell a fully featured OS for PCs, it would kill off hardware sales.

What they should do is offer a free, downloadable trial of OSX that runs on any PC. Make it only run for X days, and bastardize it so its not completely usable as a permanent OS (so people don't crack or reinstall) but leave enough in there to show off OSX's features and convince people to switch.

Of course, so people don't have to partition and mess with boot loaders, perhaps make it run in a virtualized environment. I also remember back in the day BeOS, which was installed within Windows and then when you launched a program in Windows, it would reboot your machine and into BeOS, and another reboot would bring you back to Windows. That would work too

The problem with doing that is, some hacker will figure out how to crack it so it works all the time, not just only during the 30 days. You will still run into problems with software not working because it requires OS X.3 or great or whatever. Its just not going to work. Apple isn't going to spend the money and resources on people who don't want to buy current hardware and software.

The best thing that Apple ever did was switch to Intel chips. Then it gives people more choices than they've ever had on a Mac.

Here's an idea for people:

Make 1 or 2 standard model(s) of each Mac model. So make 1 standard Mac Mini and then give a bunch of choices. Give a choice of 1.83/2.0/2.16 GHz Core 2 Duo CPUs. Give a choice of 60, 80, 120 GB HDs, etc. Make an iMac with a 20" screen and x GHz CPU. Then give a choice of a 17", 20", or 24" screen (appropriately increasing or decreasing the price). Then for example, you could configure a 17" 2.33 GHz Intel C2D iMac with a 256MB Video Card in it a 250 GB SATA HD, and a Combo Drive if thats what the customer wants. You don't have to spend the extra $100 to get the SuperDrive just to get the faster CPU, or whatever if you don't want it. If you don't want Bluetooth, then you don't add it on and you save x amount of dollars. You could do this for every model, not just the MacPro and Xserve. There, now a customer has choices in what they want. The bad thing I see about this is it may make production costs go up as not every Mac model will be the same. Most every Mac will be a BTO, but Apple could sell a specific set of models in their stores and on the Apple Online Store just like they do with the Mac Pro. The people who just want a Mac and don't necessarily care what they want can get one of the standard models.

[IJ Reilly]

The answer to this question is actually a lot simpler than many make it out to be. Apple won't sell OSX for installation on generic PCs because they'd be creating competitors for their own products -- and that would be a very dumb business strategy.

And before anybody asks: no, Microsoft never had this problem.

[Mozze]

I think this would hurt Apple even more, if I buy a Dell and put a OS X on it and lets say my video card does not work right and it skips a little, if I have never used a Mac how am I supposed to know that Apple hardware will be any better?

That was the problem I was thinking of. but like minded people like myself like to build their own PC and install the OS we like. ( I just don't see the point in someone charging me a 1000 dollars in labor to do something I can do in ten minutes)

but I see all of these posts about selling OSX would break apples back if that is the case how did MS get so much money??? ( when MS released Windows UNIX was available and it had a solid GUI its not like MS was the only choice) if apples operating system is so much better why not give a list of approved hardware to solve any issues mentioned in the quote and let it go. Apple makes tons of cash nickel and dimeing you to death with the .Mac and other programs that are not included ( the only MS programs not included with windows is Office and the games the release) how many programs does mac make that it charges you extra for programs that people love. I honestly believe that apple would make a fortune on the OSX software so much so that that even gaming companies would start to write games for macs again.

[roland.g]

By not marketing their OS Apple has painted themself into a corner where new Macs must run windows. Its that simple. when you have 5% marketshare who wants to develope anything for your little tiny itsy bisty market, Look at Mac gaming,Video cards or Tv tuners for Mac and its pathetic. Apple is Silly for not selling their best product. Mac OSX is their best product in my view.

Maybe you have to look at the marketshare a little differently. Try TVs and cable/sat. A lot of MR people are more cutting edge and have widescreens, and digital cable or satellite with nice surround systems, etc. But a huge segment of the population doesn't. Maybe they've bought a widescreen low end tv but they still have basic or expanded cable or rabbit ears, but not satellite or digital. They might not have a widescreen. Lesser is the number that have higher end LCDs or plasmas. While this may not be the best analogy since people will go into crazy debt for their tv entertainment...

Mac marketshare makes sense though. 5% of the people care about the computer and their computing experience. The other 95% of the hordes and masses either don't care, are uneducated/misinformed, are too cheap, continue to use what they have been/etc etc. Not everyone buys nicer watches, clothes, entertainment equipment, cars, or other quality items who's names and manufacturers reputations are synonymous with quality, reliability, etc. Some people buy knockoffs at wal-mart, some people buy more name brand. It's economics. And it's lifestyle and income. Apple is the name brand. PCs, whether Dell, HP, etc, build your owns, are the knockoffs. The quality isn't quite the same, neither is the ride, the handling, or the included extras (albeit for a price).

Make 1 or 2 standard model(s) of each Mac model. So make 1 standard Mac Mini and then give a bunch of choices. Give a choice of 1.83/2.0/2.16 GHz Core 2 Duo CPUs. Give a choice of 60, 80, 120 GB HDs, etc. Make an iMac with a 20" screen and x GHz CPU. Then give a choice of a 17", 20", or 24" screen (appropriately increasing or decreasing the price). Then for example, you could configure a 17" 2.33 GHz Intel C2D iMac with a 256MB Video Card in it a 250 GB SATA HD, and a Combo Drive if thats what the customer wants. You don't have to spend the extra $100 to get the SuperDrive just to get the faster CPU, or whatever if you don't want it. If you don't want Bluetooth, then you don't add it on and you save x amount of dollars. You could do this for every model, not just the MacPro and Xserve. There, now a customer has choices in what they want. The bad thing I see about this is it may make production costs go up as not every Mac model will be the same. Most every Mac will be a BTO, but Apple could sell a specific set of models in their stores and on the Apple Online Store just like they do with the Mac Pro. The people who just want a Mac and don't necessarily care what they want can get one of the standard models.


It's amazing though how many people walk into their stores and buy stock configs. I'm sure they do their research to find out what those should be. A lot of MR people are more BTO oriented. But I just don't see that happening. They include BT & Wireless standard now because they are always leading in terms of what newer technology is available and making it standard. 802.11g and now n as an example.

[roland.g]

That was the problem I was thinking of. but like minded people like myself like to build their own PC and install the OS we like. ( I just don't see the point in someone charging me a 1000 dollars in labor to do something I can do in ten minutes).

What gets lost on so many people is that Apple doesn't charge $1000 in labor for building you the machine. They charge a good price for an above the bar experience in which you pay for good hardware, excellent design, innovative and cutting edge technology, all seamlessly integrated with an awesome and always evolving worry free OS loaded with a variety of applications that work together. People really don't get how great iLife is. For the average consumer, it's fantastic. They'll never fully experience all the bells and whistles it has. For the geek who wants more, maybe iPhoto or iMovie or whatever is somewhat limited, but it's a great start. If you want something more they now offer Aperture and have always been an industry leader with Final Cut. With Final Cut Express, an attractive suite including Sountrack and Livetype, the home tinkerer can take it up a step for a reasonable price. There is a reason that the entire print industry (magazine, newspaper, photography) and the video industry (tv, film, etc.) have always been Mac dominated, and Adobe is first and foremost an Apple Software Developer. Photoshop for the PC was an afterthought. Those people in those fields need their work to get done, quickly and right, and the software and power of the Mac platform has always been their bread and butter. The business world, which by the way is to a large degree what drives the marketshare into such a skew, is almost entirely PC. Why. It's cheap. Lots of offices with cheap boxes running Windows. Makes sense. Of course as things get more complicated, internet, networking, e-everything, Windows sucks and so IT professionals make bank fixing a constantly jerry-rigged duct-taped system together. And MS can't keep up. XP was a step up but overdue and Vista is just the next evolution of the nightmare. I feel sorry for any company that goes through the growing pains of upgrading and dealing with the issues that that can of worms brings along.

[tutubibi]

... Vista is just the next evolution of the nightmare...

Nicely said. :)

[johnmartin78]

Apple isn't a software company,they are a hardware company.And they make software primarily for their hardware.
Which brings me to a little pet pieve of mine,comparing Apples market share with Microsoft's is like comparing Micheal Jordan with Dan Marino.It's 2 different ball games.Apple = hardware...Microsoft = Software.Can we please stop comparing the two.

[mrgreen4242]

I appreciate the responses though I still think Apple could make a fortune by selling say a two year old version of its OS for PC use in order to grab needed marketshare. Maybe even a cleaned up 10.1

That would be a terrible idea. Using an old product like that would just hurt future Apple sales. It wouldn't compare well to Vista, so would make people just look away from other Apple products.

I don't agree that Apple should sell OSX separately, but I think it would be a good idea for them to license it out to another OEM, with some strict restrictions; such as final say one what hardware they ship, how much they can charge for it, what other software is installed on the machine, etc.

For example, they could let Dell sell a midrange tower that a lot of us want, but that doesn't fit into Apples current product line. Make them limit it to being roughly a headless iMac, so they don't canabalize Mac Pro sales to badly and also to keep a limited amount of hardware configurations out there. They would only be allowed to use chipsets iMac are shipping with, GPUs and CPU that are in one of the iMacs, etc.

There'd be a decent amount of options you could pick from that way... start with a 1.66ghz CD on a 965GM mobo w/ GMA950 GPU and start adding faster CPUs/C2Ds, the x1600 128/256mb models, the 7300GT, or the 7600GT, more RAM, bigger/multiple HDDs, faster/more optical drives, etc etc. That shouldn't decrease the stability of OSX, since it's all the same parts Apple is already using. People could "upgrade" things on their own and run the risk of using non-official drivers, etc, but that's not Apple's (or Dell's) problem.

Also only let them use cases that were approved by Apple. Something that is similar to Dell's normal case, but modified enough to know it's running OSX, but not anything that is stylish like a "real" Mac. Liek a White w/ gray accents Optiplex case.

Charge a decent amount for the OS, of which Apple gets 100% (Dell could charge, say, $800 for the hardware and Apple gets $200 for the OS sale, plus a little quarterly royalties payment from Dell).

This would be a good deal for everyone, I think. Apple would move into a new market of people who want headless midrange systems without any real risk. They'd get a pretty nice profit off a system/process that they've invested basically no cash into. There'd be more people "trying out OSX" which could lead to future sales. Dell would sell some hardware to a crowd that is willing to pay a little more for good stuff, which is a plus for them. They'd have a good opportunity to sell some extra LCDs, printers, speakers, etc as well.

[tutubibi]

Apple isn't a software company,they are a hardware company.And they make software primarily for their hardware.
Which brings me to a little pet pieve of mine,comparing Apples market share with Microsoft's is like comparing Micheal Jordan with Dan Marino.It's 2 different ball games.Apple = hardware...Microsoft = Software.Can we please stop comparing the two.

Apple makes a lot of software for a non-software company.

But I think it is more than OK to compare software offerings of Apple and Microsoft. They have different business models, but saying comparison between them does not make sense is like saying we should not compare PS3 and Wii because Sony is not gaming company.

[roland.g]

For example, they could let Dell sell a midrange tower that a lot of us want, but that doesn't fit into Apples current product line. Make them limit it to being roughly a headless iMac, so they don't canabalize Mac Pro sales to badly and also to keep a limited amount of hardware configurations out there. They would only be allowed to use chipsets iMac are shipping with, GPUs and CPU that are in one of the iMacs, etc.

Also only let them use cases that were approved by Apple. Something that is similar to Dell's normal case, but modified enough to know it's running OSX, but not anything that is stylish like a "real" Mac. Liek a White w/ gray accents Optiplex case.

As bad as I want a mid-range option, for a nano.second you had me re-thinking my initial reaction (I can still taste the vomit) to owning a Dell running OS X with the whole Apple approved case, but

NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO.

I will buy a Leopard loaded 24" iMac (hopefully in black or silver) if there is no mid-range Mac this spring before you ever ever ever ever ever I could type a few more ever ever ever got my to buy a Dell running OS X.

Don't get me wrong mrgreen as I respect your opinion, but I also think that opens up more problems than it's worth, not to mention, if they want to give people that option, they will do it themselves and make money off the hardware too.

On a side note. People are talking marketshare, Buildyourownboxes, different configs, don't make everyone have to pay for BT or SDs if they don't want it. Maybe it doesn't cover every one of these points, but Apple does want you to switch, but for who they are, they won't change their model to bring more people in who for some reason are trying to rationalize that there just isn't a Mac for them (their lineup is pretty complete). What would that say to the people loyal to the brand and everything it stands for if they cheapened it for marketshare. Oh wait I forgot, everyone wants the stuff to be as good but somehow more PC.

[KingofAwesome]

I think Apple would have no problem whatsoever getting MacOS X running on about any modern PC. However, your point (2) is absolutely right: I don't think the number of sales of MacOS X would grow too much, and for every two sales of MacOS X or even less Apple would lose one sale of a Macintosh. Most stupid move possible for Apple.

No problem whatsoever, eh?

I think you have too much faith in Apple's definitely existing history of developing drivers for every recently-made PC motherboard, to say nothing of the rest of the components present in modern PCs.

And Apple would need to convince consumers to spend another $130 on an operating system even though they already have Windows installed.

The segment of the market that buys PC's, pays for OS's (besides those bundled with the system), and wants to install Mac OS X on a PC is not exactly a big market with high margins.

[Skrilla™]

Apple isn't a software company,they are a hardware company.And they make software primarily for their hardware.
Which brings me to a little pet pieve of mine,comparing Apples market share with Microsoft's is like comparing Micheal Jordan with Dan Marino.It's 2 different ball games.Apple = hardware...Microsoft = Software.Can we please stop comparing the two.

couldn't agree more.

and the answer to the question is NO.

[KingofAwesome]

That was the problem I was thinking of. but like minded people like myself like to build their own PC and install the OS we like. ( I just don't see the point in someone charging me a 1000 dollars in labor to do something I can do in ten minutes)


What? You can pick out a very good, compatible set of components for a complete system and put them together in just ten minutes? And you can match the performance and general design quality for $1000 less than what Apple is charging?

That would be a 20" LCD screen (the high quality kind, remember), a C2D 2.16Ghz, 250GB SATA HD, 1GB RAM, some decent motherboard, a moderate video card with 128MB, DL DVD burner, wireless/ethernet card, bluetooth, microphone, speakers, keyboard, mouse, camera, case, fans, IR sensor, and power supply for $500.

And remember, when you buy an Apple machine you're paying for the R&D that went into picking out those components and designing a system to hold them all, not to mention the process to assemble them. That knowledge has a cost.

I know that we can build comparable systems from scratch for less than what Apple charges, but you don't need outrageous exaggerations to make a point. It completely ruins the point.

[mrgreen4242]

What? You can pick out a very good, compatible set of components for a complete system and put them together in just ten minutes? And you can match the performance and general design quality for $1000 less than what Apple is charging?

That would be a 20" LCD screen (the high quality kind, remember), a C2D 2.16Ghz, 250GB SATA HD, 1GB RAM, some decent motherboard, a moderate video card with 128MB, DL DVD burner, wireless/ethernet card, bluetooth, microphone, speakers, keyboard, mouse, camera, case, fans, IR sensor, and power supply for $500.

And remember, when you buy an Apple machine you're paying for the R&D that went into picking out those components and designing a system to hold them all, not to mention the process to assemble them. That knowledge has a cost.

I know that we can build comparable systems from scratch for less than what Apple charges, but you don't need outrageous exaggerations to make a point. It completely ruins the point.

Well, that's just the point. You're highlighting all the reasons I'd want to build my own Mac. I don't want a "high quality" (read expensive) 20" LCD. I want a 22" mid-range LCD. I don't want a midrange GPU. I want a high end own (depending on the day of the week I want a high end card or a low end one, that's just my schizophrenia, though). I have no use for BT, a webcam, or IR remote on my computer either.

I don't want a stylish case, I want a smallish case I can hide under my desk, and fans that are QUIET. I don't even want a Core2Duo, really. A dual core Pentium D would be just fine, thanks. I could build the machine that I want from Apple for something like $600. Add $300 for the LCD that makes me happy and it is $600 to $1100, depending on what you want to compare. (You could compare it to a mid-range iMac and call it fair, but you could also compare it to a Mac Pro, since that's the only way to get comparable configurability).

[princealfie]

As much as I love Macs and everything, I would love to have more options open on Apple hardware switching in and out. The Mac Pro is nice but way too pricey honestly. And the iMac has no PCI slots!

So it's back to the Powermac G3/G4 stuff or Hackintosh I guess?

[localoid]

As much as I love Macs and everything, I would love to have more options open on Apple hardware switching in and out. The Mac Pro is nice but way too pricey honestly. And the iMac has no PCI slots!

So it's back to the Powermac G3/G4 stuff or Hackintosh I guess?

The mini is pretty hackable in it's present design state in terms of CPU upgrades and even using a 3.5" SATA drive. The brick wall is the 3D-challenged onboard graphics, which isn't bad if you only need 2D-graphics. You warranty is void, but die-hard hackers probably don't care... ;)

If the mini gets the Santa Rosa treatment, ending up with X3000 graphics onboard, it would be an even more desirable box for hacking. Another Firewire 400 port or the addition of Firewire 800 could open up more possibilities, as would an attached graphics "card" like the NVIDIA GeForce Go 7400 the Apple TV is rumored to be using. Much beyond that and it wouldn't fit in the tiny mini-sized box, tho'...

Never-the-less, the the reality is: if and when the mini might receive a design change is anyone's guess. Meanwhile, the mini's not bad if your work (or play) time doesn't require high-end 3D graphics.

[roland.g]

or the addition of Firewire 800

The Mini most certainly will not get Firewire 800.

[Mozze]

Well, that's just the point. You're highlighting all the reasons I'd want to build my own Mac. I don't want a "high quality" (read expensive) 20" LCD. I want a 22" mid-range LCD. I don't want a midrange GPU. I want a high end own (depending on the day of the week I want a high end card or a low end one, that's just my schizophrenia, though). I have no use for BT, a webcam, or IR remote on my computer either.

I don't want a stylish case, I want a smallish case I can hide under my desk, and fans that are QUIET. I don't even want a Core2Duo, really. A dual core Pentium D would be just fine, thanks. I could build the machine that I want from Apple for something like $600. Add $300 for the LCD that makes me happy and it is $600 to $1100, depending on what you want to compare. (You could compare it to a mid-range iMac and call it fair, but you could also compare it to a Mac Pro, since that's the only way to get comparable configurability).

Thank you thats what I was trying to get across I don't even need an LCD a high quality CRT would do just fine and being able to use a cheaper cpu like an amd x2 and a pair of high quality SLi gpu's or even one high quality Gpu with being forced into the 2100+ dollar range with a mac pro at it's lowest configuration don't get me wrong I like apple and I think they are a great company I would just like to see things at a more even playing field with windows and the only way I see that happening is if apple releases a vr of OSX for "whitebox" builders. I know apple likes to control the hardware and such but I don't see a problem with apple getting royalties from hardware manufactures for building components to apples specs... if they just did that it would make their place in the computer world so much bigger, and they would still have control on the hardware.

[fall3n]

Apple wouldn't do this as this would actually decrease their profits. If you can buy the mac OS X on a cheaper system such as a dell then that means you don't have to buy an Apple computer. The whole catch to Apple's products (except for a few such as the iPod) is that you HAVE to have an Apple computer to use them. Apple's popularity and profits have increased significantly in the past several years, they have no need to make a move like such.

[Mozze]

Apple wouldn't do this as this would actually decrease their profits. If you can buy the mac OS X on a cheaper system such as a dell then that means you don't have to buy an Apple computer. The whole catch to Apple's products (except for a few such as the iPod) is that you HAVE to have an Apple computer to use them. Apple's popularity and profits have increased significantly in the past several years, they have no need to make a move like such.

But honestly I think that gain in popularity has been due to the Ipod and it's other NON computer related products, I don't know if they have increased in sales of macs and laptops I would assume they have but I would say that it is due to their non computer products. I honestly believe that if they did introduce the OSX with some controlled hardware that the average/experienced user could buy off the shelf assemble and decide what OS they wanted (ie not being forced to buy xp/vista or some of the dozens of random versions of Linux) I really feel that apple as a company would see huge profit gains and gain a ton of users witch in turn would increase their profit margin overall. if it wasn't for me being in tech support at symantec I wouldn't have even known apple was still around. Apple didn't put a blip in the electronics world until the trendy ipod came along and with all this forward momentum I think it is time that apple sticks it to M$ and release an OS that gives more end users a real alternative option.

[EdT]

Second, why do we all love OS X? Why? Is it because it looks pretty, ummm probably not! Is it because it because its more compatible with Windows, umm maybe, but were still not there! Is it because the damn OS just works, BINGO! Now why does it "just work"? Is it because Apple makes damn good hardware, ummm no! Yes, they do make damn good hardware but thats not really what makes OS X what it is. What makes OS X what it is today is the fact that Apple controls what hardware its installed into. If it were developed to be installed into any PC, it would have compatibility problems just like Windows does, though not as severe. It would have more problems developing major updates (dot releases ie. OS X.5) as it would have to make sure it works with the rest of the world's hardware.



This is more or less the reason I'm planning on switching. I have used Windows for more than 20 years. I'm sick of each Windows version of BSOD, I can no longer believe the claims with EACH new OS or service pack how this time they got the security problems fixed, tired of programs locking up my system, completely sick to death of hours upon hours of time on a phone only to be told it's because I have some "non-standard" component (usually factory installed) that is causing a problem, something the manufacturer-Dell/Gateway/HP denies.

I don't think everything will suddenly turn sunshine and roses if I switch. I think I will still have OS problems, I will probably wish company A would produce their software for the Mac, while realizing that they won't, and that if I was a hard core gamer I should probably stay with a PC (but not with Vista), or at least have a Windows game machine on the side. BUT, from talking with friends who own Macs, looking around on a lot of forums, and investigating the hardware/software tie in, I don't think those problems will come anywhere near what they are on a Windows machine.

Apple makes it possible for me to boot in Windows XP if I wish. Yes its an extra cost for the OS but it works and works well from when I have tried it on my friends machines. Their machines don't lock up if you leave it connected with a browser left connected to the Internet, they way my last 2 Windows machines (a Dell and an HP, respectively). To solve my lockups and slow-downs, I have been told a couple of times to save all my files, wipe the disk, and do a complete re-install of XP and all the programs I use -never by MS, but once by HP and more times by programmers I know. This does correct the problem-for about 3 months. I use spam blockers, virus checkers, registry cleaners and firewalls and keep them all up to date. But my registry still grows -even when I have not installed any new programs myself, and if I roll by the registry to an earlier date I usually lose a MS update that was recently installed, leaving my system open until their next auto update unless I manually re-download them.

My interest in Apple is because it looks like I can learn to use the software without needing to spend a lot of time and effort just keeping the *&^%!! operating system running. And at this stage, thats worth a lot to me..

I will be waiting for Leopard before buying, however.....:)


Ed

[localoid]

The Mini most certainly will not get Firewire 800.

Relax. I'm not trampling upon the FW800 "holy ground" without good reason -- I was speaking of what (useful things) one physically might be able to squeeze into a little cd-sized plastic what-not box obviously not large enough for a full-sized pci slot, 2nd HD, etc. :)

[localoid]

... I honestly believe that if they did introduce the OSX with some controlled hardware that the average/experienced user could buy off the shelf assemble and decide what OS they wanted (ie not being forced to buy xp/vista or some of the dozens of random versions of Linux) I really feel that apple as a company would see huge profit gains and gain a ton of users witch in turn would increase their profit margin overall...

That concept (Apple selling what basically amounts to a "bare bones" system) would seem to be a possible solution, but even this could be a real challenge to manage if it offered what everyone seems to desire -- a slot for a mega-ultra super-wicked graphics card. Imagine what all the "computer geniuses" of the world would try to stick in there... or "tweek" in such a system.

Maybe Apple should sell a "developer's kit" for an additional fee above the $499 ADC Select fee. That (price) might cut down on some of the potential problems... dunno.

[snowmoon]

My interest in Apple is because it looks like I can learn to use the software without needing to spend a lot of time and effort just keeping the *&^%!! operating system running. And at this stage, thats worth a lot to me..

I will be waiting for Leopard before buying, however.....:)


Ed

Yep, this is also the reason I switched. I wanted to be productive and not fiddling with things all the time just to get them working. The whole fiasco with all pre-SP2 XP keys being permanently blacklisted forcing me to waste my time calling India when I needed to reinstall was adding insult to injury.

Let me tell you it's amazing when things work like they should... everything for software install and uninstall to plugging in and rotating a monitor were dirt simple. No driver headaches, no buggy installs, no virus problems, no spyware, no hassles, no calling India to get an ungodly long number to activate windows.

I'm happy with my switch to Tiger and I'm sure you will be happy with Leopard as well.

[Sun Baked]

I really feel that apple as a company would see huge profit gains and gain a ton of users witch in turn would increase their profit margin overall.

Apple tried to convert to a software company once, it destroyed revenue, crippled their ability to sell hardware, and made them bleed ... and nearly wiped them off the face of the planet.

Sounds like maybe Apple should try for a repeat.

Especially since their PC business is doing better than ever, and is likely to add megabucks to the revenue numbers in the years ahead.

Heck these are real revenue dollars, unlike the iTunes store where Apple is selling stuff for someone else. Big difference between the two revenue numbers.

[Umbongo]

But honestly I think that gain in popularity has been due to the Ipod and it's other NON computer related products, I don't know if they have increased in sales of macs and laptops I would assume they have but I would say that it is due to their non computer products. I honestly believe that if they did introduce the OSX with some controlled hardware that the average/experienced user could buy off the shelf assemble and decide what OS they wanted (ie not being forced to buy xp/vista or some of the dozens of random versions of Linux) I really feel that apple as a company would see huge profit gains and gain a ton of users witch in turn would increase their profit margin overall.

You, like many others, are under the impression that Apple should be competing with Microsoft on the OS front, or dell/HP on the hardware side. Apple are doing their own thing by being one of the few remaining system sellers. They are providing the whole enviroment. Jobs wants Apple to offer the best computing experience they can, they don't need to do anything other than carry on doing what they are doing at the moment. The switch to Intel is still in it's infancy as to showing where Apple can go and what market share they can capture.

if it wasn't for me being in tech support at symantec I wouldn't have even known apple was still around. Apple didn't put a blip in the electronics world until the trendy ipod came along and with all this forward momentum I think it is time that apple sticks it to M$ and release an OS that gives more end users a real alternative option.

I find this debatable, Apple's stock and profile rose a couple of years after both the iPod and OSX had been introduced (IIRC). Even without the iPod I think Apple would still be strong in the computing market.

[Mozze]

I find this debatable, Apple's stock and profile rose a couple of years after both the iPod and OSX had been introduced (IIRC). Even without the iPod I think Apple would still be strong in the computing market.

Ok here is my perspective on that I honestly forgot about Apple all together until I was being trained on Linux/Unix/Macintosh virus removal. If I did not work at Symantec I wouldn't have even known Apple was still around. (I am an avid PC hardware enthusiast) And outside of work I didn't even know anyone who owned a Mac ( i take that back I knew someone who had a mac laptop the ones that looked like they had changeable color skins and it was horrid slow so I never gave mac another look until now) I am finally at the point where I understand the Mac hype but I still don't understand how they can justify their prices. I know I will get a ton of flaming for that but seriously $1000 for R&D and an "experience" please if you know anything about computers you can make windows just as stable. I don't see why now with the OSX they don't release it to selective hardware they have approved to just gain more users they will still have the .Mac to make money and since they release new OS like MS makes update packs they can make a killing I just don't get it. and please can you people quit comparing apple to dell/gateway apple is more like alienware only they charge more for hardware

[mrgreen4242]

Apple wouldn't do this as this would actually decrease their profits. If you can buy the mac OS X on a cheaper system such as a dell then that means you don't have to buy an Apple computer. The whole catch to Apple's products (except for a few such as the iPod) is that you HAVE to have an Apple computer to use them. Apple's popularity and profits have increased significantly in the past several years, they have no need to make a move like such.
I'm not sure Apple makes, on average, $200+ on each system they sell. The Intel components are pretty expensive (C2D's aren't cheap, anyways). I'd love to see them offer a limit licensing deal with a select manufacturer, letting them maintain control over hardware that goes into "Macs" and charge $300 for the OS alone, plus another $50 for iLife. I'd pay a $350 premium to get OSX on a configure to order Dell, and I think $350 would be close if not more than they'd make on my potential hardware purchase (I'm looking at a mini or maybe a low end iMac).

Relax. I'm not trampling upon the FW800 "holy ground" without good reason -- I was speaking of what (useful things) one physically might be able to squeeze into a little cd-sized plastic what-not box obviously not large enough for a full-sized pci slot, 2nd HD, etc. :)

I think an eSATA port would be more useful and more likely. FW400 is fine for DV work, and eSATA would be better than FW800 for external HDDs, plus leave the full FW400 bandwidth open for peripherals, like DV cams.

[fall3n]

I'm not sure about Apple's actual margins, but on the retail side of things they are lower but not THAT much lower. For an equal laptop to a Macbook you'll see about $150 in margin, for a Macbook it would be around $120. This of course was 2 years ago when I worked at a computer shop. Nonetheless, I couldn't ever see Apple doing something like this. They like to be in complete control of their products and offer that all around experience, perhaps this is arrogant of them, but I really do feel it's what is so unique about Apple. To me, it's why Apple just works. It works because pretty much everything is made by Apple or for Apple to work with Apple products. To take OS X and sell it to non Apple hardware configurations is like taking a Porsche engine and sticking it in a Toyota Corrola. Sure it may work, but the results could be disastrous.

[mrgreen4242]

I'm not sure about Apple's actual margins, but on the retail side of things they are lower but not THAT much lower. For an equal laptop to a Macbook you'll see about $150 in margin, for a Macbook it would be around $120. This of course was 2 years ago when I worked at a computer shop. Nonetheless, I couldn't ever see Apple doing something like this. They like to be in complete control of their products and offer that all around experience, perhaps this is arrogant of them, but I really do feel it's what is so unique about Apple. To me, it's why Apple just works. It works because pretty much everything is made by Apple or for Apple to work with Apple products. To take OS X and sell it to non Apple hardware configurations is like taking a Porsche engine and sticking it in a Toyota Corrola. Sure it may work, but the results could be disastrous.

I'm pretty sure it's Steve Job's control freak nature. While it's not LIKELY To happen under his reign, it could, or it could happen later after he leaves. Also, technically Apple doesn't make anything except software. They design systems, and now-a-days they do it around a pre-designed reference board, then contract out the construction of the hardware to various Asain manufacturers.

Really, what is happening is they build software around a certain set of known hardware, not build hardware and software together. If they licensed out OSX with the right conditions, this same level of "known hardware" would be maintained.

[IJ Reilly]

I'm pretty sure it's Steve Job's control freak nature. While it's not LIKELY To happen under his reign, it could, or it could happen later after he leaves. Also, technically Apple doesn't make anything except software. They design systems, and now-a-days they do it around a pre-designed reference board, then contract out the construction of the hardware to various Asain manufacturers.

Really, what is happening is they build software around a certain set of known hardware, not build hardware and software together. If they licensed out OSX with the right conditions, this same level of "known hardware" would be maintained.

If "technically" Apple doesn't make anything but software, then "technically" Dell, HP and any other PC maker you care to mention doesn't make anything.

The reason Apple doesn't license OSX to other PC manufacturers is so much simpler than most people make it out to be. It's because companies don't deliberately create competitors for their own products, and they don't do that because it's just plain bad business.

[iJawn108]

Ha what a troll post.
Seriously, Apple did this in the 90's and it allmost killed apple.
If you want mac on a PC try OpenStep or Ubuntu

[KingofAwesome]

Thank you thats what I was trying to get across I don't even need an LCD a high quality CRT would do just fine and being able to use a cheaper cpu like an amd x2 and a pair of high quality SLi gpu's or even one high quality Gpu with being forced into the 2100+ dollar range with a mac pro at it's lowest configuration don't get me wrong I like apple and I think they are a great company I would just like to see things at a more even playing field with windows and the only way I see that happening is if apple releases a vr of OSX for "whitebox" builders. I know apple likes to control the hardware and such but I don't see a problem with apple getting royalties from hardware manufactures for building components to apples specs... if they just did that it would make their place in the computer world so much bigger, and they would still have control on the hardware.

Well, if that's what you meant, then that's different. I was just drawn to the statement about you supposedly having this super ability to spec out and assemble a complete comparable machine in ten minutes and for $1000 cheaper, since that is quite obviously unnecessary hyperbole that only serves to discredit your opinion.

I am finally at the point where I understand the Mac hype but I still don't understand how they can justify their prices. I know I will get a ton of flaming for that but seriously $1000 for R&D and an "experience" please if you know anything about computers you can make windows just as stable.

Wait, what? You're once again saying that you could build a comparable machine for $1000 less? I seriously have to question where you're getting these ideas from, because the numbers you toss around are nothing like current prices. If you can spec out a $1000+ Apple machine (using default configurations, except in cases where the parts can only be upgraded by Apple when the system is initially purchased) for $1000 less, then why not prove it with a list here, including sources. Don't forget to add in retail costs for the OS and included software.

I don't see why now with the OSX they don't release it to selective hardware they have approved to just gain more users they will still have the .Mac to make money and since they release new OS like MS makes update packs they can make a killing I just don't get it. and please can you people quit comparing apple to dell/gateway apple is more like alienware only they charge more for hardware

THEY DO release OSX with selective hardware. They come preassembled because the demographic that wants to cut down costs by assembling the products themselves is too small, and would put too much burden on Apple support because every call would require further steps to make sure the correct components were used and connected properly.

Besides, "if" they did what you're suggesting, then you would be on macrumor forums complaining that you want to be able to take you own precise pick of components and assemble them, rather than be stuck choosing from their selection of hardware.

[ganjagecko]

This comparison may be a bit exaggerated, but comparing Macs to regular PC's is like comparing Loewe and Bang & Olfusen TV sets with the ones made by Sony, Phillips, etc...

Of course, you can buy Panasonic receiver, Sony TV, Phillips DVD player and have a nice home theater. That would suit my tv watching needs for example. There are people, however, that want more from their home theater, and are willing to spend $20,000 on a TV set that includes everything else you would have to put together by hand, and that may not necessarily play well together.

Since Macs integrate everything in one box, they can make it work pretty damn good. It would be like asking of Loewe something like: "why don't they sell their technology to other TV manufacturers so that they can benefit from all the nice things their very exclusive TV's are known for. It's just not happening. And as I said, the comparison is VERY exaggerated because the price difference between Macs and PC's is not as steep. But still...

[mrgreen4242]

Ha what a troll post.
Seriously, Apple did this in the 90's and it allmost killed apple.
If you want mac on a PC try OpenStep or Ubuntu

I think the real core of this question isn't even about wanted OSX on a generic PC. It's the general state of dissatisfaction with Apple's current desktop lineup. They sell an All-In-One that is a decent machine and provides a good value, if and only if you buy the whole package. If you want to get your own display, or configure your machine a little differently, you have just two choices, a $2000+ Pro machine (which requires the use of extremely expensive RAM) or a pretty low end, non upgradeable, somewhat expensive for what it is mini.

Apple has been pretty unwilling to cater to the mid-range headless Mac crowd; they made a brief attempt with the single CPU G5 PowerMac a few years ago, but even that was fairly costly ($1500 if I recall) and not a great value compared to other machines. People want that sort of machine, and would gladly pay Apple for the software to run on it, or pay a premium price to a select vendor if Apple would let them sell it.

The old clone debacle was a shame, but the main problem with that era was a relatively low demand for Macs and an excess in vendors. With demand for Apple computers rising, I don't think a partnership with a select OEM or even two would hurt Apple at all. Then again, I could be wrong.

[fall3n]

I think the real core of this question isn't even about wanted OSX on a generic PC. It's the general state of dissatisfaction with Apple's current desktop lineup. They sell an All-In-One that is a decent machine and provides a good value, if and only if you buy the whole package. If you want to get your own display, or configure your machine a little differently, you have just two choices, a $2000+ Pro machine (which requires the use of extremely expensive RAM) or a pretty low end, non upgradeable, somewhat expensive for what it is mini.

Apple has been pretty unwilling to cater to the mid-range headless Mac crowd; they made a brief attempt with the single CPU G5 PowerMac a few years ago, but even that was fairly costly ($1500 if I recall) and not a great value compared to other machines. People want that sort of machine, and would gladly pay Apple for the software to run on it, or pay a premium price to a select vendor if Apple would let them sell it.

The old clone debacle was a shame, but the main problem with that era was a relatively low demand for Macs and an excess in vendors. With demand for Apple computers rising, I don't think a partnership with a select OEM or even two would hurt Apple at all. Then again, I could be wrong.

I'm not sure if it's really that Apple is "unwilliing" to create this sort of machine, but rather that there really isn't that large of a demographic that is interested in such a machine. Most people using Mac's are either consumers that are perfectly happy with a machine the just works and doesn't need to be upgraded and changed around and all that OR are professional developers in media or what not and will buy the high end Pro versions offered to them which are highly upgradeable.

[IJ Reilly]

It's because Apple knows it would be a massively dumb move to create competitors for their own products. Nobody does this -- for a good and obvious reason. It's got nothing to do with demographics or upgrades or integration or quality, or anything else really. You don't compete with yourself. Simple as that.