why pc's have more market share?

[chagla]

I have wondered about that for a long time.
Any ideas? WHat do you personally think is the reason?
If you ask me, I'll just two words - modularity and pricing.
also when I say "PC", i don't mean just Windows base, it includes everything else.
Thanks.

oh, move from PPC-> intel was great. after all, keeping up with the latest is vital in tech world. lol.

[Shotglass]

I have no idea how it happened. My guess is it has something to do with Microsoft's early dominance in the OS market. But that's just a guess, I can't find a logical explanation if that's what you need.

[zap2]

Well, when you should PC, you should mean only Windows based, because any other OS, has less market share then Mac OS X.



It comes down to a number of things, including bad marketing in the 90's by Apple, most mistakes in the 70's with IBM and MS, but most of all the fact that Apple is one hardware maker(and won't let other sell OS X), so to think they could ever have 95%+ of the market today, is madness. It makes more sense to compare Apple to companies like HP, Dell, Sony, Gateway, etc....and Apple's number 3, if I recall correctly.(but its by a large margin)

[katejones]

more variety, cheaper

[Hawkeye411]

Gaming

[gkarris]

more variety, cheaper

Gaming

And just in case no one has mentioned yet:

Gaming

More Variety

Cheaper

[mcarnes]

PCs are perceived to be cheaper (which in the long run is debatable). Most people are relatively poor or just shop for a good deal. They just want it cheap and don't care about quality.

Quote for Roger Ebert: "But since any reasonable person would choose a Mac over a PC, Apple's market share does provide us with an accurate reading of the percentage of reasonable people in our society."

:D

[nick9191]

Apple dont sell a hundred dollar computer.
Apple was very expensive, then Microsoft brought out Windows 1.0 for $99.
Other companies couldn't put Apples OS on their computers.
Apple's OS's sucked, until OS X which is the best, but by then it was too late.

[clevin]

PCs are perceived to be cheaper (which in the long run is debatable). Most people are relatively poor or just shop for a good deal. They just want it cheap and don't care about quality.

:D

its not perceived, it IS cheaper, nobody says hardware configurations has to be like Macs.


There is nothing about Hardware quality, same hardwares have about same quality.

Its about choice, with PC, people has choice to buy a cheaper computer with hardware configurations that are good enough for them.

[digitalnicotine]

Because more people purchase Windows based machines than others (OSX, etc.). Every other reason varies across the board, so that's the only conclusive (although obvious) answer. I've purchased both MS and Apple systems for years, and favor Apple over MS hands down. But not everyone is even willing to try something "new", and humans are generally resistant to change. The trend is turning steadily, as Mac gains in market share, but I strongly suspect it will still trail far behind MS for several years into the future.

I don't think cost is the key issue, although it is a large factor. Personally, I think the fear of having to learn something new is the biggest factor. My opinion. :)

[CalBoy]

Because IBM made one of the biggest blunders in corporate history, and this allowed dozens upon dozens of companies to enter the computer market by lowering the price of hardware with only one unifying theme: Windows (or rather, a Microsoft-written operating system).

[clevin]

Because IBM made one of the biggest blunders in corporate history, and this allowed dozens upon dozens of companies to enter the computer market by lowering the price of hardware with only one unifying theme: Windows (or rather, a Microsoft-written operating system).

maybe a big blunder for IBM, but a really great thing ever happen for normal users.

[Eidorian]

Because IBM made one of the biggest blunders in corporate history, and this allowed dozens upon dozens of companies to enter the computer market by lowering the price of hardware with only one unifying theme: Windows (or rather, a Microsoft-written operating system).IBM-compatible -> Windows-compatible

Those were the days!

[CalBoy]

maybe a big blunder for IBM, but a really great thing ever happen for normal users.

I make no value judgements about whether or not it was a great thing, because if IBM had held onto the software rights, there might have been further competition between OSes and that could have conceivable led to much better OSes sooner rather than later.
Those were the days!

I still remember that classic Wheel of Fortune with Vanna's hair oh so pixelated. :p

[clevin]

I make no value judgements about whether or not it was a great thing, because if IBM had held onto the software rights, there might have been further competition between OSes and that could have conceivable led to much better OSes sooner rather than later.


may, or may not.

KDE and GNOME are competing, Good or not? IDK

Its less to do with competition, IMHO, more about the structure of computer industry. The whole thing, if, were all in IBM's hand, it would just be another monopoly, maybe even worse.

[CalBoy]

Its less to do with competition, IMHO, more about the structure of computer industry. The whole thing, if, were all in IBM's hand, it would just be another monopoly, maybe even worse.

It has a lot to do with competition. Hardware prices continuously came down and quality continuously came up because companies had to compete with each other. IBM would have had a similar setup as Apple does now, and new competitors would have likely written their OSes as that would have been the industry's structure.

The reason Microsoft was able to create such a strong monopoly is because there was no viable competitor in the OS market.

[clevin]

It has a lot to do with competition. Hardware prices continuously came down and quality continuously came up because companies had to compete with each other. IBM would have had a similar setup as Apple does now, and new competitors would have likely written their OSes as that would have been the industry's structure.

The reason Microsoft was able to create such a strong monopoly is because there was no viable competitor in the OS market.

we were talking about when everything started, if IBM were to hold some copyright and kills windows from start, OS/2 would be the monopoly.

Can you imagine a 7 time bigger apple monopoly the market? competition? would be dead 10 years ago. Sure M$'s monopoly isn'y healthy, but apple's mode is worse as far as competition is concerned.

M$ at least opened up there OSes to fit every possible hardwares, such that those hardware producers can actually compete. With apple's mode, how they gonna compete?

[7on]

we were talking about when everything started, if IBM were to hold some copyright and kills windows from start, OS/2 would be the monopoly.

Can you imagine a 7 time bigger apple monopoly the market? competition? would be dead 10 years ago. Sure M$'s monopoly isn'y healthy, but apple's mode is worse as far as competition is concerned.

M$ at least opened up there OSes to fit every possible hardwares, such that those hardware producers can actually compete. With apple's mode, how they gonna compete?

They'd have to make "Apple compatible" software :p

Honestly, if MS hadn't come about we'd all still be on AppleTalk and extension-less forked files. If MS died today and Apple magically had 95% market share, I would say competition would be better than it would have been (Apple's more prone to open standards today, minus the occasional .pages document).

[clevin]

If MS died today and Apple magically had 95% market share, I would say competition would be better than it would have been (Apple's more prone to open standards today, minus the occasional .pages document).

doubt it, first, 95% of hardware producers would just die, competition goes down the tube.

Apple today is more prone to open standard? IDK, some examples? :)

[chagla]

except for the elites and the affluents, the average Joe is indeed concerned about what his money will get him. he will want the maximum out of his money. aesthetics is nice and cute but the performance and specs are important. in that respect, hardware and price comparison, apple is beaten easily. (the recent mac pro vs dell precision comparison had some major flaws, it cleverly omitted some important facts about dell precision)

if you mention the "experience", well, it is what it is...experience. this is not a physial thing. so i kinda find it absurd to include "experience" on a debate. just present hard, cold facts.

anyways, if apple was in control with their pricing scheme, having a computer or laptop would be luxury for most people on earth. not to mention their overly proprietary controlling method...-> this is the sole reason i never thought of giving mac os a try until recently. i inherited two mac systems.

[MisterMe]

we were talking about when everything started, if IBM were to hold some copyright and kills windows from start, OS/2 would be the monopoly.

...You need to study your personal computer history. IBM introduced the IBM PC in 1981. Its primary OS was PC-DOS from Microsoft, which was based on Q-DOS, a CP/M rip-off that Microsoft bought from Seattle Microsystems. By retaining rights to sell its own version of MS-DOS, Microsoft was able to leverage its IBM connection into the monopoly that it enjoys today.

IBM introduced OS/2 in 1987, some six years after it introduced its PC. OS/2 was a joint effort of IBM and Microsoft. IBM sold retail versions as IBM-OS/2. Microsoft sold MS-OS/2. Both competed against MS-DOS, MS-Windows, and PC-DOS. For various reasons, OS/2 was a market failure. Microsoft dropped development of OS/2 and took its version, replaced the Presentation Manager GUI with the Windows 3.x GUI, and sold it as Windows NT. Windows NT maintained compatibility with OS/2 commandline applications.

I assume that you are thinking about OS/2 Warp, the Windows 3.1-compatible version of OS/2 that IBM introduced in 1994, some seven years after OS/2 first came to market. By then, OS/2 was in no danger of becoming a monopoly.

[zap2]

we were talking about when everything started, if IBM were to hold some copyright and kills windows from start, OS/2 would be the monopoly.

Can you imagine a 7 time bigger apple monopoly the market? competition? would be dead 10 years ago. Sure M$'s monopoly isn'y healthy, but apple's mode is worse as far as competition is concerned.

M$ at least opened up there OSes to fit every possible hardwares, such that those hardware producers can actually compete. With apple's mode, how they gonna compete?

Apple's and MS's core products are different, Apple is both, hardware and software, MS is software.....it makes as much sense to think that Apple can have 95% of the current market, as it does that Dell can have 95% percent of the market, its just not do able, when you're a hardware company(which bundle with great software)

(When Apple allowed the clones, that was a different plan then the current one, so I'm not talking about that with my above post)

[GSMiller]

PCs are perceived to be cheaper (which in the long run is debatable). Most people are relatively poor or just shop for a good deal. They just want it cheap and don't care about quality.

Quote for Roger Ebert: "But since any reasonable person would choose a Mac over a PC, Apple's market share does provide us with an accurate reading of the percentage of reasonable people in our society."

:D

:D Awesome quote.

[CalBoy]

we were talking about when everything started, if IBM were to hold some copyright and kills windows from start

Had IBM taken that route, then other computer competitors would have entered with their own hardware+software combinations, rather than just relying on the software to come from one source (Microsoft).

Can you imagine a 7 time bigger apple monopoly the market? competition? would be dead 10 years ago. Sure M$'s monopoly isn'y healthy, but apple's mode is worse as far as competition is concerned.

IBM would have never been able to become that large in the personal computer market as competitors would have entered as soon as they gained in popularity.

It only becomes a monopolistic problem if one or two companies are the sole suppliers in the industry. Had the market evolved to be IBM, Apple, HP, Sony, etc, then there would have been sufficient competition to spur innovation and give consumers more options.

Where it would have been a problem is in standards and formats. However, as with other industries, common commands and procedures would have been established (just like how there are dozens of car manufacturers, but all cars have a fairly basic method of control like a steering wheel, brake, accelerator, etc).

M$ at least opened up there OSes to fit every possible hardwares, such that those hardware producers can actually compete. With apple's mode, how they gonna compete?

Microsoft forces the hardware makers to be the sole sources of innovation. Microsoft doesn't necessarily have to improve their OS if they have a functioning monopoly, which certainly isn't good for progress.

If the world was full of companies following Apple's model, there would be competition along both the hardware and software fronts.

[Aea]

I think it's all a matter of momentum, and although there is no single reason, this is what I think is the major cause. In the "golden years" of the 90's Microsoft simply had the better product. I unfortunately had to use the "olden" Apple machines, and compared to the windows machines of the time they were slow, ugly, expensive, and really suboptimal in the grand scheme of things. Everything pre-OSX was the very bastion of mediocrity, so the obvious industry reaction was the focus around windows. The most stubborn of these was gaming, it simply worked better on windows, and unfortunately that's where all the framework focus (DX) went into. These frameworks/APIs were so extensive and since DX was made by Microsoft, the gaming industry stubbornly stuck to windows. There are other factors too, for one OSX is locked to Apple Hardware, OSX has some bad implementation for traditional windows roles (mainly gaming). Also, consumer Apple machines are undeniably expensive, the "professional" machines are comparatively cheap, but the consumer machines have some nice markup.

[mstens]

I make no value judgements about whether or not it was a great thing, because if IBM had held onto the software rights, there might have been further competition between OSes and that could have conceivable led to much better OSes sooner rather than later.


I still remember that classic Wheel of Fortune with Vanna's hair oh so pixelated. :p

IBM had no OS ready, which is why they contracted with Microsoft. They've tried their own PC OS's... none of them caught on either.

[CalBoy]

IBM had no OS ready, which is why they contracted with Microsoft. They've tried their own PC OS's... none of them caught on either.

Yes, but IBM was in the dominant position in that time period to make Microsoft hand over the legal rights to the OS. That's what I meant by "large corporate blunder."

[mstens]

eh, not really. They were so far behind their own release schedule they needed something NOW, course you could argue that schedule was a mistake.. but..

Notice IBM doesn't waste their time with the PC market anymore. On the whole it's really not a huge profit.

[CalBoy]

eh, not really. They were so far behind their own release schedule they needed something NOW, course you could argue that schedule was a mistake.. but..

Notice IBM doesn't waste their time with the PC market anymore. On the whole it's really not a huge profit.

At the time period we're talking about, IBM was the largest technology company in the world and one of America's bluest blue chips. Microsoft was a small start up with virtually no assets.

Had IBM demanded that Microsoft sell rather than lease the software to IBM, then history would have turned out quite different.

[clevin]

...
i think u made way too many assumptions which probably not that reliable.

if you think software alone in the beginning days was already too hard to compete with M$. And how would software+hardware be easier ?

[mstens]

At the time period we're talking about, IBM was the largest technology company in the world and one of America's bluest blue chips. Microsoft was a small start up with virtually no assets.

Had IBM demanded that Microsoft sell rather than lease the software to IBM, then history would have turned out quite different.

I don't think so. Bill Gates was in the power position at the time and he KNEW it. It was one of his brightest moments actually ;) Microsoft wasn't the first OS they went after btw. The first one told them to pound sand :D course, they're not around anymore either

What did IBM bring to the party? All they really bought was legitimacy as far as consumers were concerned.

[Rodimus Prime]

The answer is simple. It is the fact that Apple does not license its OS to any one but it self. If IBM did the same thing in the past the results would at best be like they are today and at worse we would have a crappier OS and computers due to lack of composition.

I think if was not M$ being the one with largest market share it would of been linux since no one like everything being tied to one maker. Plus the government would of stepped in. and forced it.

If apple ever gets to 80% you can bet they will be broken apart. One hardware and one software

[scotty96LSC]

I think the PC had the early edge in computers since that was all people knew when the computer age started. So that is what people bought.
Then comes Apple.
Now you have the "resistance to change" thing happening and thus PC continues to lead the pack.
But, I believe, there will be a day when Apple takes that lead.

[clevin]

I think the PC had the early edge in computers since that was all people knew when the computer age started. So that is what people bought.
Then comes Apple.
thats only half of the history.

[juanm]

In one word: inertia.

[RedTomato]

If I was running desktops, I'd probably still be on PCs. It's just so much cheaper to build (or buy) a desktop PC than a desktop mac.

The mac mini is lovely, but it just doesn't have the flexibility of a desktop pc. (and the old LCD imacs didn't either)

I only really started looking at macs when I moved to laptops. You can't build a laptop pc, and mac laptops just blow away pc laptops.

[MisterMe]

... Bill Gates was in the power position at the time and he KNEW it. ...This is simply not true. Microsoft's primary product was MS-BASIC, which it developed for several operating systems. At the time, Microsoft was not in the OS business, and thus, had zero (0) power with IBM.

[CalBoy]

i think u made way too many assumptions which probably not that reliable.

This is just a "what if" scenario. But, I'm basing my assumptions on the competition that occurred in other industries in a similar manner. Historically speaking, that's probably how things would have developed.

if you think software alone in the beginning days was already too hard to compete with M$. And how would software+hardware be easier ?
:confused: I'm sorry, I just don't understand all of what you're trying to say here.
I don't think so. Bill Gates was in the power position at the time and he KNEW it.
Before that bargain, Gates was nothing but a college drop-out with supportive parents.

What did IBM bring to the party? All they really bought was legitimacy as far as consumers were concerned.

How would you sell a product without legitimacy? ;)

IBM was in the position to dictate terms to Microsoft at that time, but they simply didn't perceive the software to be valuable enough to bother with. IBM just couldn't fathom how popular personal computers would rapidly become.

[MacFanBoyIIe]

I agree with the OP's first reason, "Modularity."

PC: Modularity. Expandability. Upgradability. Open. Flexibility. Options.

Mac: Limited. Closed. Proprietary. Fixed. Locked. Monopoly.

Now if someone were to ask my preferences regarding operating systems I would take OS X as the better choice every time. But we're talking total package here. You can't (legally) put OS X on PC hardware. It's locked down.

[kuwisdelu]

I agree with the OP's first reason, "Modularity."

PC: Modularity. Expandability. Upgradability. Open. Flexibility. Options.

Mac: Limited. Closed. Proprietary. Fixed. Locked. Monopoly.

Now if someone were to ask my preferences regarding operating systems I would take OS X as the better choice every time. But we're talking total package here. You can't (legally) put OS X on PC hardware. It's locked down.

If you're talking about the total package, then you can't avoid talking about Windows. If you're referring to a PC with a Linux distro on it, then you're very much right. However, probably 99% of all non-Mac PC's come with some variety of Windows, so your description should read more like this:

PC: Closed. Proprietary. Bloated. Expandability. Options. Monopoly. Monopoly. Monopoly. Viruses.

Your description only applies if you're talking about a PC w/ Linux, which definitely do not have a majority market share.

[MacFanBoyIIe]

If you're talking about the total package, then you can't avoid talking about Windows. If you're referring to a PC with a Linux distro on it, then you're very much right. However, probably 99% of all non-Mac PC's come with some variety of Windows, so your description should read more like this:

PC: Closed. Proprietary. Bloated. Expandability. Options. Monopoly. Monopoly. Monopoly. Viruses.

Your description only applies if you're talking about a PC w/ Linux, which definitely do not have a majority market share.

You completely misread the post. Windows can be installed on ANY PC, made by any company, or even built by your stubby little hands. :D
OS X can only legitimately run on Macs built by Apple.
So again,
Mac: Limited. Closed. Proprietary. Fixed. Locked. Monopoly.
PC: Modularity. Expandability. Upgradability. Open. Flexibility. Options.

And AGAIN, I'll say, OSX is still the better operating system.

"Do try to pay attention 007...."

[kuwisdelu]

You completely misread the post. Windows can be installed on ANY PC, made by any company, or even built by your stubby little hands. :D
OS X can only legitimately run on Macs built by Apple.
So again,
Mac: Limited. Closed. Proprietary. Fixed. Locked. Monopoly.
PC: Modularity. Expandability. Upgradability. Open. Flexibility. Options.

And AGAIN, I'll say, OSX is still the better operating system.

"Do try to pay attention 007...."

No, I didn't misread the post. I understand what you meant, but when you say "the total package" you have to consider more than just what operating systems you can run on a piece of hardware.

Again, I'll say that everything you said is completely valid as long as you're talking about a non-Mac PC on which you intend to put an OS like Linux.

Yes, as far as what hardware it can be installed on, Windows is much more open and flexible than OS X, however as far as the OS itself, once you put Windows on any particular computer, it's just as locked-down and proprietary as OS X. As far as limited goes, Windows has some more user options (like UI tweaking, etc.) than OS X, but as far as openness goes, a far greater percent of OS X is open-source than Windows.

[MacFanBoyIIe]

stuff...

OK that's great, but the question isn't about Windows. It's about WHY PC's have more market share. PC's can run anything except Mac OSX. Apple won't allow OSX installed on anything except Apple built hardware.
So, my comments still stand:

Mac: Limited. Closed. Proprietary. Fixed. Locked. Monopoly.
PC: Modularity. Expandability. Upgradability. Open. Flexibility. Options.

Are you tracking?

[chagla]

OK that's great, but the question isn't about Windows. It's about WHY PC's have more market share. PC's can run anything except Mac OSX. Apple won't allow OSX installed on anything except Apple built hardware.
So, my comments still stand:

Mac: Limited. Closed. Proprietary. Fixed. Locked. Monopoly.
PC: Modularity. Expandability. Upgradability. Open. Flexibility. Options.

Are you tracking?
wow! thank you for mentioning the part in the bold. folks take a cheap shot at pc laptops saying, "well my macbook CAN run Windows but your pc can't run leopard". as though it's somehow PC's fault for unable to run leopard.

gee, of course it can't run leopard bcz its crippled to run only on a specific hardware.

[zap2]

It's about WHY PC's have more market share.

Well if you're going to nit pick, then Mac now fall under PCs, the OP has to be asking about Windows based PC, since Linux based PC doesn't have more market share


Mac: Limited. Closed. Proprietary. Fixed. Locked. Monopoly.
PC: Modularity. Expandability. Upgradability. Open. Flexibility. Options.


Wow...if were talking PC w/ Windows, then you're wrong...very much so on the "Open."


But the answer to the question why PCs have more market share is

Apple's 1 hardware maker, and the OP is comparing one hardware company vs all other companies.

Why does Sony have less market share then the Gateway, HP, Dell, Apple, Acer, Asus combined? Because its 1 vs many

[MacFanBoyIIe]

Well if you're going to nit pick, then Mac now fall under PCs, the OP has to be asking about Windows based PC, since Linux based PC doesn't have more market share....

The owner of a PC can install any OS he wants, except for OSX. Most just choose to install Windows. That's why when I say PC, you automatically assume Windows. Are we done with the stupid semantics? :rolleyes:

[MacFanBoyIIe]

wow! thank you for mentioning the part in the bold. folks take a cheap shot at pc laptops saying, "well my macbook CAN run Windows but your pc can't run leopard". as though it's somehow PC's fault for unable to run leopard.

gee, of course it can't run leopard bcz its crippled to run only on a specific hardware.

Just bringing the brutal truth to the masses. Granted I love Macs, but I'm not a sheep. Prefer to keep an open mind and think for myself. Some of these sheep on this forum take the brutal truth like Rosie O'Donnell takes a ****. No offense Rosie. :D

[zap2]

The owner of a PC can install any OS he wants, except for OSX. Most just choose to install Windows.


Haha...please, do you honestly believe that? Most people choose to install Windows? Are you sure its not

"Most don't know a thing about what different OSes are, so they stick with Windows"

[kuwisdelu]

OK that's great, but the question isn't about Windows. It's about WHY PC's have more market share. PC's can run anything except Mac OSX. Apple won't allow OSX installed on anything except Apple built hardware.
So, my comments still stand:

Mac: Limited. Closed. Proprietary. Fixed. Locked. Monopoly.
PC: Modularity. Expandability. Upgradability. Open. Flexibility. Options.

Are you tracking?

The question is either inherently about Windows or it's an inherently flawed question. You're answering the wrong question. Look at the rest of these posts and you'll see we're primarily talking about PC's with Windows, as there really isn't any reason to talk about Macs vs. PC's in general. If you're talking like that, then, well, a Mac is a PC, and...what zap said:

Well if you're going to nit pick, then Mac now fall under PCs, the OP has to be asking about Windows based PC, since Linux based PC doesn't have more market share



Wow...if were talking PC w/ Windows, then you're wrong...very much so on the "Open."


But the answer to the question why PCs have more market share is

Apple's 1 hardware maker, and the OP is comparing one hardware company vs all other companies.

Why does Sony have less market share then the Gateway, HP, Dell, Apple, Acer, Asus combined? Because its 1 vs many

If you compare Apple to individual PC manufacturers like HP, Dell, Gateway, Sony, etc., then it's really not lagging behind at all. In fact, as Steve Jobs said, Apple and Dell are the only companies in the industry turning a sizeable profit right now, and "[Dell] does it by being Wal-Mart and [Apple] does it by innovating."

If you're only looking at hardware, then, I suppose your comments are still accurate, to some extent, but if you're only looking at hardware then talking about why "PC's" have more market share than Macs is silly, because a Mac is a PC. If you look at Apple's market share as far as PC's go, there's really nothing surprising, and it's also a market in which Microsoft does not compete in, nor has ever competed in. The question is why PC's with Windows have more market share than Macs.

Not to mention, if you're considering just the hardware and it's compatibility with software, then Macs are really a much more "open, expandable, flexible" platform than other PC's, because you CAN install OS X, Windows, Linux, and any x86 operating system you want. With other PC's, you can't install OS X. Yes, that's the fault of OS X, not the hardware, but if you're going to ignore Windows in your PC argument, then you must also ignore OS X, which ultimately makes a Mac more flexible than other PC's.

[zap2]

The question is either inherently about Windows or it's an inherently flawed question.

YES! Thats it!



If you compare Apple to individual PC manufacturers like HP, Dell, Gateway, Sony, etc., then it's really not lagging behind at all.
Yes, infact I believe Apple's in 3rd when you compare that(HP and Dell are 1 and 2)



In fact, as Steve Jobs said, Apple and Dell are the only companies in the industry turning a sizeable profit right now, and "[Dell] does it by being Wal-Mart and [Apple] does it by innovating."

Haha, true, but I think thats more of a marketing set up, then fact. HP does well for itself, I'll tell you that



The question is why PC's with Windows have more market share than Macs.

Yup, and the answer is 1 hardware company vs many, and its like "Why even ask that question? Its apples and oranges(not meant to be a pun)

[IJ Reilly]

The dominance of the IBM-PC hardware platform is essentially an historical accident, which benefited Microsoft far more than it ever did IBM. The hardware design was almost entirely generic, but IBM included a proprietary ROM-BIOS which they assumed would enough to protect their investment in the PC and relived any concerns they might have had about granting Microsoft the rights to sell DOS to other PC manufacturers (of where there were none at the time). Compaq was the first to figure out how to clone the BIOS without violating IBM's copyrights. It was all over for IBM -- now anybody could sell an "IBM compatible" PC and buy their OS from directly from Microsoft. IBM struggled for years to find a way back into the driver's seat but never came close. All of this happened before the Mac was even released, btw.

[MacFanBoyIIe]

I agree the question is flawed. The 3 of us have all made good points, but each of our points are based on how we individually interpreted the question.

I wonder if the OP'er would be so kind as to clarify the question.

[MacFanBoyIIe]

...Compaq was the first to figure out how to clone the BIOS without violating IBM's copyrights. It was all over for IBM -- now anybody could sell an "IBM compatible" PC and buy their OS from directly from Microsoft.

So, for those of us who don't want to be restricted to getting our hardware from Apple but would still like to run OS X, how can we legally be more like Compaq? And NO, I'm not talking about hackintosh, as that is against forum policy. I'm talking about finding a LEGAL way to run OSX on another company's (or home-brewed) hardware. There's gotta be a loop-hole there somewhere in the EULA or copyright.

[bartelby]

I'm talking about finding a LEGAL way to run OSX on another company's (or home-brewed) hardware. There's gotta be a loop-hole there somewhere in the EULA or copyright.

Do you not think the Apple legal dept. have got it totally covered?
If not, I'm sure someone would be exploiting it by now.

[kuwisdelu]

So, for those of us who don't want to be restricted to getting our hardware from Apple but would still like to run OS X, how can we legally be more like Compaq? And NO, I'm not talking about hackintosh, as that is against forum policy. I'm talking about finding a LEGAL way to run OSX on another company's (or home-brewed) hardware. There's gotta be a loop-hole there somewhere in the EULA or copyright.

There isn't one. There won't be one. If Apple allowed people to legally run OS X on systems outside of their control, then any problems with stability/drivers/etc. on those systems would become a PR nightmare for them, even if it's not technically their fault.

As arn pointed out a while back, I don't think it's strictly against forum policy to discuss breaking EULAs, but hackintosh discussions often get closed down because they often are also associated with links to steal/pirate OS X, which is against forum rules.

If you really want to make a hackintosh, though, I don't think Apple will come after you. Just make sure you buy a legal version of OS X. Apple doesn't mind hackintoshes too much, I think, because those who make them often end up buying a real Mac sooner or later, simply because the real thing is usually better. Feel free to try, though, I say.

[IJ Reilly]

So, for those of us who don't want to be restricted to getting our hardware from Apple but would still like to run OS X, how can we legally be more like Compaq? And NO, I'm not talking about hackintosh, as that is against forum policy. I'm talking about finding a LEGAL way to run OSX on another company's (or home-brewed) hardware. There's gotta be a loop-hole there somewhere in the EULA or copyright.

Apparently not. Apple was smarter about how to protect their hardware architecture from the very start. They even went a step further (on the early Macs anyway) of burning many of the low-level OS routines onto copyrighted ROMs. I don't know if Apple learned from IBM's mistakes, but they certainly did not make them.

[chagla]

thank you for contributing everyone. as i'm fairly young, i don't know much about computing history, especially pre-Windows 98 period. so learned bits of info i didn't know. :)

okay. this really isnt' another WINDOWS vs MAC thread. i did in fact mention on the first post PCs brigade as every other OS's (linux, windows etc) and MAC as just mac os. perhaps i failed to clarify, i mostly wanted to be a hardware focused comparison. but then operating systems do come in the picture.
just wondering why people buy non-apple hardware (dell, hp and the likes) instead of apple? is it price? what if apple slashed prices to compete with dell, hps? would people buy apples then? Would there be a significant rise in mac users worldwide? is it the operating system or is it the hardware? what is the reason why choose a particular system?

it is easy to answer for mac because if I want to use mac, i MUST buy an apple hardware. i don't know anybody who buys a mac to run Windows (or linux).

keep up the debate.

[clevin]

Yup, and the answer is 1 hardware company vs many, and its like "Why even ask that question? Its apples and oranges(not meant to be a pun)


Apple's 1 hardware maker, and the OP is comparing one hardware company vs all other companies.


what hardware are you talking about? computer shells?

[zap2]

what hardware are you talking about? computer shells?

You got me!


I guess my point is no longer valid!

Oh wait, it is!
:rolleyes:

[kuwisdelu]

okay. this really isnt' another WINDOWS vs MAC thread. i did in fact mention on the first post PCs brigade as every other OS's (linux, windows etc) and MAC as just mac os. perhaps i failed to clarify, i mostly wanted to be a hardware focused comparison. but then operating systems do come in the picture.

just wondering why people buy non-apple hardware (dell, hp and the likes) instead of apple? is it price? what if apple slashed prices to compete with dell, hps? would people buy apples then? Would there be a significant rise in mac users worldwide? is it the operating system or is it the hardware? what is the reason why choose a particular system?

People buy non-Apple hardware for a large variety of reasons. One reason is, like zap said, because if you build your own computer, you get much more control over what components you put in it, giving you many more customization options while often being cheaper. Lots of people can't afford non-Apple hardware, so they don't have any other choice than to buy cheap Dell, HP, etc., computers for <$500 and so on. The biggest reason, IMO, is that people simply buy what they're used to. Most people are used to Windows (another, it usually comes down to OS whether you want it to or not) and so they buy a computer pre-loaded with Windows from a manufacturer with which they're familiar like Dell or HP. If you want to talk about Linux users...well, first of all, they make up an even smaller portion of the OS marketshare than Mac OS X, so their impact on hardware purchases is pretty minimal. I'd say most Linux users are pretty concerned about customization and freedom (which is part of why they love Linux--if it weren't for such things, they'd have little reason to dislike OS X) and so they are often people who build their own computers. Other Linux users usually install it on an Windows PC after getting tired of Windows...though some manufacturers are beginning to make BTO Linux-installed PC's.

Apple doesn't need to slash prices to compete with Dell and HP. The low-end computing market just isn't where they're competing. And besides, Apple is really more about OS X. It's a great operating system, and when you talk about Macs--hardware or not--it's always going to come back to OS X. Lots of people buy Macs these days wanting to try out OS X, but also knowing that with Bootcamp they can use Windows as well. If you pop into the "Windows on Mac" forum, you'll see there are many people that say "I thought I'd spend most of my time in Windows...but I love OS X and hardly ever use Windows anymore! How do I make my Windows partition smaller so it isn't taking up so much space?" In the end, it's really about OS X, which is kind of unintuitive, because Apple sells OS X so cheap that it barely makes any profit on its own operating system. But it doesn't need to. Because OS X is such an important part of a Mac, and because it can only be run on a Mac, Apple uses OS X to sell its hardware, which is where it really makes its profits. OS X is what sells Macs. We're just lucky that they happen to be great hardware, too.

Apple's business model in general is just like this: use software to sell the hardware. It's the same with iTunes for the iPod and the App store for the iPhone. Apple doesn't make any money off iTunes or its store, but offers it as a great service for those who buy iPods, which is where the money comes from. Apple won't make money off the App store for the iPhone, but it'll make a killing on the iPhone. (Despite all the naysayers about the 30%/70% split, this kind of thing is pretty normal, and Apple's cut will go to maintaining the app store; it'll be a tiny fraction compared to the money it makes from the iPhone.)

All in all, I think asking why people do or do not buy Apple hardware compared with other companies like Dell or HP is pretty silly if you don't start talking about software. That's really what's important when it comes to Apple. The hardware-software integration is at the very core of Apple's business model and it's what's made them so successful. When Apple was failing as a company in the 90s and brought Steve Jobs back, many inside the company wanted to license the Mac OS to other computer makers like Windows, thinking that was the only way to save the business. But it was a wise choice not to do this. Steve Jobs created Apple with the tight integration between software and hardware in mind, and that's the way it will always be (as long as Jobs is at the helm). It's what's best for the business, and in many ways, it's very often what's best for the end users. If you don't talk about software, then asking why anyone buys Apple's hardware over HP's is no different than asking why anyone buys Dell's computers over Sony's, or Sony's over Toshiba's.

[LizKat]

In one word: inertia.

Yep, but I'd make it two words: corporate inertia.

[Eraserhead]

The dominance of the IBM-PC hardware platform is essentially an historical accident, which benefited Microsoft far more than it ever did IBM. The hardware design was almost entirely generic, but IBM included a proprietary ROM-BIOS which they assumed would enough to protect their investment in the PC and relived any concerns they might have had about granting Microsoft the rights to sell DOS to other PC manufacturers (of where there were none at the time). Compaq was the first to figure out how to clone the BIOS without violating IBM's copyrights. It was all over for IBM -- now anybody could sell an "IBM compatible" PC and buy their OS from directly from Microsoft. IBM struggled for years to find a way back into the driver's seat but never came close. All of this happened before the Mac was even released, btw.

That before that IBM was the computer company, and their competitors in the PC business were all startups didn't hurt the IBM PC either.

[IJ Reilly]

That before that IBM was the computer company, and their competitors in the PC business were all startups didn't hurt the IBM PC either.

Right. The old maxim was "nobody ever got fired for buying IBM," which then transferred to the PC clones. Ironically, the IBM-PC was a defensive measure for the company. Management was never really convinced that desktop computing was real -- they were oriented towards the big iron. But Apple's success with the Apple II and Commodore with the PET persuaded IBM that this market could not be entirely ignored. The entire project was sort of an afterthought, which is why they selected generic hardware and hired an outside company to produce the OS. It's certainly interesting to consider how popular the IBM-PC would have become had IBM retained control of the platform. Probably not very, if only because the company was only half-heartedly committed to desktop computing, and other companies were better positioned to compete in this market.