Dell Says He'd Sell Apple's Mac OS

[amac4me]

Michael Dell, the founder and Chairman of Dell computer stated that Dell would be open to selling systems with Mac OS. Check out the article.

http://www.fortune.com/fortune/fastforward/0,15704,1072719,00.html

[iGary]

*throws up* - again.

[jared_kipe]

Of course he would. Why would it be a bad thing for any PC company to offer a different OS? But it won't happen, at least not yet.

[Josh]

It's going to happen, it's all just a matter of time.

It might not be soon, but there will be a day when you can walz in to Best Buy and buy Mac OS (enter version here), go home, and install it on the PC you already own.

I think it's great, I don't know what all the 'heart break' is about.

Apple is in the business of making money; they're not in the business of being a 'be different, rebel, don't conform' cult.

They will ALWAYS produce top-notch stuff. But their goal is just the same as any company: distrubute that top-notch stuff to as many customers as possible.

I honestly do think there will be a day when Apple will take over the computer industry, and Mac OS will be on the majority of user-computers, in the work-places etc. Mac OS is the future of computers. All in good time :D

[amac4me]

It's going to happen, it's all just a matter of time.

It might not be soon, but there will be a day when you can walz in to Best Buy and buy Mac OS (enter version here), go home, and install it on the PC you already own.

I think it's great, I don't know what all the 'heart break' is about.

Apple is in the business of making money; they're not in the business of being a 'be different, rebel, don't conform' cult.

They will ALWAYS produce top-notch stuff. But their goal is just the same as any company: distrubute that top-notch stuff to as many customers as possible.

I honestly do think there will be a day when Apple will take over the computer industry, and Mac OS will be on the majority of user-computers, in the work-places etc. Mac OS is the future of computers. All in good time :D

I agree ... I think Steve Jobs will approach the OS differently this time around ... his previous decision helped make Microsoft what it is today. I don't think he'll make the same mistake twice.

[zim]

I think that if Apple was to license their OS to anyone it would be with HP, seeing how they already have a relationship with them. But I doubt the chance of this happening anytime soon.. maybe, and I have my doubts, years after the processor switch is complete but not anytime sooner... at least that is my prediction. The only reason why I think apple would not do this is because it would set up competition for themselves and they are into making not only the best OS but the best computer experience.

[SpaceMagic]

Quite an interesting read. Although, from Apple's point of view.. mass selling Mac OS X like Windows would be very profitable and in a way good for us all as more software would come to the mac.

However, I often feel that we'd be jealous of this. Mac users like to keep to themselves in a way. We like to think ourselves apart.. I think we all like being in a niche market, where we can brag about our systems. I think this is why we all got a bit huffed at WWDC because part of our arguements to why Macs are better was taken away from us.

I'm the same though... but I don't know, perhaps an OS X world would be a safer and better one.

[MBHockey]

This will never happen under Jobs. Whoever becomes CEO after him, well, that's another story.

[SilvorX]

i would rather shoot myself than see dells with OS X

[mashinhead]

i think it will happen too, but then mac becomes windows. and what does that mean for mac hardware?

[SeRgIo_42]

In an yet imaginary world, where Steve Jobs is not working anymore to Apple and the board of CEOs decided to make the very last bit of money of Jobs' legacy, I would dare to say that this is indeed possible.

If this is a matter of time...I just hope that this will not happen in the next 10 years...or at least when my new iMac gets obsolete...15 years, then ? :p

[iJon]

I agree ... I think Steve Jobs will approach the OS differently this time around ... his previous decision helped make Microsoft what it is today. I don't think he'll make the same mistake twice.
Steve's problem was he never copyrighted the OS he created. Microsoft took it and there was nothing he could do besides piss and moan.

jon

[vaprof]

Dell already sells Intel boxes with Linux...

While it's true that Apple would sell more copies of OS X, how much
would their development expenses go up, needing to support a broader
spectrum of hardware? And if Dell is just going to build boxes to Apple's
spec, what's in it for Apple? Why wouldn't they want to capture whatever
profit is in the hardware for themselves?

Hard to see how this would benefit Apple, unless they have manufacturing
constraints. With Intel inside (ahem), shouldn't one of the major bottlenecks
be gone?

How hard would it be for them to port OS X to Sparc? Maybe Apple should
buy Sun, given Sun's depressed stock price.

[noel4r]

I just cant see Dells w/ OS X in them. It's like putting a BMW engine in a Hyundai. I can see them, however, selling Apple computers. That would make a lot of sense for Apple.

[virus1]

that would be really scary. i hope apple stays with what they have.

(i just realized i am spending half my free time on a rumor site for a company.. i need a life)

[SFVCyclone]

From front page...

Steve Jobs has made it clear that Apple is a hardware company, not a software company,

Didn't he say its about software?

[Stella]

Whilst its not going to happen under Jobs, I don't think this is negative.

It shows that OSX has made a positive on other PC manufacturers and would, in theory be billing to license it - so there is a potential market for this.

Personally, I can't see why this story would be negative.

[PlaceofDis]

wont happen, yes Apple is in the business of making money, but they make much more money off their hardware sales than off their software sales. maybe once Jobs is no longer with Apple then something like this would happen, but its not going to happen anytime soon, plus they know that one of the reasons that OS X is such good quality is because they control the hardware that it is being put on, unlike Windows....

[amac4me]

In today's day and age the issue is satisfying Wall Street. There is no longer as much emphasis placed on innovation, ease of use, and overall user experience. Today companies worry about their quarterly and yearly earnings reports because it's now an era of satisfying Wall Street and investors. If a company fails to meet expectations, lowers growth prospects and/or revenue guidance, or gives any indication that "things are just not right" within the company the STOCK GETS HAMMERED.

I think Apple is now a "Wall Street Centric" company. The iPod began the shift and the Intel switch continues the trend. Apple's objective is to satisfy Wall Street by growing both the top and bottom line ... it's all about unit sales, profitability, and margins.

[mbamac]

the world will end.... ;)

[emotion]

I just cant see Dells w/ OS X in them. It's like putting a BMW engine in a Hyundai. I can see them, however, selling Apple computers. That would make a lot of sense for Apple.

it would be more accurate to, say, have a situation where you have a toyota engine in a BMW-produced car.

(ie. the New Mini Diesel is an example of that)

i can see pcs shipping with macosx...

apple hardware is nice enough to still sell alongside most pc hardware. if you ask me.

[broken_keyboard]

Apple won't sell OS X standalone. They will continue as they have, except people won't be afraid to buy a Mac any more because if they don't like it, they can just install Windows and still have a cool looking box.

[allpar]

1) Dell is the world's largest computer seller
2) "Nobody gets fired for buying from Dell"
3) Dell has the imprimature of the corporate market
4) Dell can scale better
5) Dell can cover the "cheap end" of the market
6) Dell can, in short, help increase market share especially in corporations, which is kinda vital, because with the under-2% corporate share right now, schools are sayin' ya gotta get Windows.

[FriarTuck]

Michael Dell wants to be Steve Jobs, Exhibit 3,291.

[jadam]

Damn, all you people are funny!

This would probablly be one of the greatest things to happen for OS X ever!

[mbamac]

1) Dell is the world's largest computer seller
2) "Nobody gets fired for buying from Dell"
3) Dell has the imprimature of the corporate market
4) Dell can scale better
5) Dell can cover the "cheap end" of the market
6) Dell can, in short, help increase market share especially in corporations, which is kinda vital, because with the under-2% corporate share right now, schools are sayin' ya gotta get Windows.

You can exchange "Dell" with "Apple wants to".

:)

[mwpeters8182]

Also, to be fair, some of the current Dell machines wipe the floor (performance-wise) with current macs.

Dells are boring, but they aren't bad computers. And I've found their customer service to be very good. We got our comptuer back in days from a motherboard replacement, where it took apple 3 weeks to get my powerbook back.

MP

[Mitthrawnuruodo]

Although it's good that OS X is popular and that Dell would consider it good business to sell, the thought... of a Dell... running... Mac OS X... just.. makes... me... want... ... ... <running screaming from the room>

[Tulse]

Michael Dell wants to be Steve Jobs, Exhibit 3,291.
Yes, but I'm really surprised that he would willingly play second-banana to Steve. Michael Dell seems to want the cool associated with Apple, but my impression was he wanted to create that cool himself, and not just pick it up reflected from Steve. Dell has just as big an ego as Jobs.

[pianodude123]

It's going to happen, it's all just a matter of time.

It might not be soon, but there will be a day when you can walz in to Best Buy and buy Mac OS (enter version here), go home, and install it on the PC you already own.

I think it's great, I don't know what all the 'heart break' is about.

Apple is in the business of making money; they're not in the business of being a 'be different, rebel, don't conform' cult.

They will ALWAYS produce top-notch stuff. But their goal is just the same as any company: distrubute that top-notch stuff to as many customers as possible.

I honestly do think there will be a day when Apple will take over the computer industry, and Mac OS will be on the majority of user-computers, in the work-places etc. Mac OS is the future of computers. All in good time :D




NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO I HATE DELL!!!! DELL STINKS!!!!! What would be the advantage to having apple if stupid DEELLLLLL just comes along and screws everything up with their stupid "dimented" desktops (fine...its "dimension...but same thing)!!!!! :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad:

[atari1356]

*throws up* - again.

The thought of Mac OS X on a Dell computer makes me ill too. :o

If it does happen, I really hope Apple stays in the hardware business because there's nothing in the PC world that compares to the quality and looks of a PowerMac/PowerBook/iMac/Mac Mini

[pianodude123]

i would rather shoot myself than see dells with OS X
agreed...i hate DELLS

[pianodude123]

The thought of Mac OS X on a Dell computer makes me ill too. :o

If it does happen, I really hope Apple stays in the hardware business because there's nothing in the PC world that compares to the quality and looks of a PowerMac/PowerBook/iMac/Mac Mini


YOU FORGOT THE IPOD...even though thats not a computer...all dell has is that STUPID DJ...which is a complete knockoff of the genuine ipod...I HATE DEll...have i told you that?

[mithras]

From front page...
Didn't he say its about software?

Yes. Paraphrase from the very end of the keynote:
...because the soul of a Mac isn't the processor, it's the operating system.
At the time, when he said that, it gave me shivers, because it really did make me think Steve was gearing up for operating system trench warfare with Microsoft... only time will tell.

[Stella]

NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO I HATE DELL!!!! DELL STINKS!!!!! What would be the advantage to having apple if stupid DEELLLLLL just comes along and screws everything up with their stupid "dimented" desktops (fine...its "dimension...but same thing)!!!!! :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad:

Not every PC uses cares about the hardware - just as long as it runs their software and does what they want it to do. You know - Dell machines does this fine for a lot of PC owners - at a cheap price.

[Paul O'Keefe]

that would be really scary. i hope apple stays with what they have.

(i just realized i am spending half my free time on a rumor site for a company.. i need a life)

Sometimes I feel that same way.... Gotta be smooth. Relax. Take the backseat. Hitch hike. Take a long ride on my motorbike.

[Ryan T.]

Michael Dell wants to be Steve Jobs, Exhibit 3,291.
He's wants to be the head of a computer company much smaller than the one he's already head of?

[mithras]

Here's the exact quote from the end of the Mactel WWDC keynote:

And, we will be very excited to keep pushing the frontiers and tell you about Leopard when we meet again next year. Because more than even the processor, more than even the hardware innovations that we bring to the market, the soul of a Mac is its operating system. And we're not standing still.

That to me sounds like a man who would at least strongly consider licensing Mac OS. Of course, Steve won't even open up Fairplay to let other cellphones and mp3 players play iTunes tracks, so maybe we shouldn't hold our breath :)

[itcomesinwaves]

While I don't have much of an opinion on Dell selling OSX, it would require major shift in policy for Apple. Of course Apple has been making a lot of surprising moves lately, and since the Intel announcement everyone wants a piece of the action. They are now positioned with so many options, it's more of a guessing game for us then it's ever been.

I expect to see more deals that focus around their open source projects (like the Nokia web browser deal). This deal interests me because there was nothing stopping Nokia from porting WebCore to their phones without any help from Apple. Nokia is essentially paying for Apple's ability to make the software usable and friendly to the average user. It also gives Apple all sorts of opportunities to capitalize on having their tech in these phones.

[Object-X]

This will not happen for several years. Apple will not license OS X until their transition to Intel is complete and the "risk" factor from this move is gone. That really means Apple will wait and see how their hardware sales are doing once the transition is complete. I think it will happen eventually. Longhorn is going to be a disaster for Microsoft. It will ship late and it will ship incomplete; and what does ship will be buggy and I predict it will have a critical security patch the first week of it's existance. The demand for OS X to be licensed will be too high at that point for Apple to resist the temptation to make gobs of money by OEM'ing it.

[ITR 81]

I could see them doing a deal with HP/Compaq and IBM, but not Dell.

Though I could see Dell selling the Mactel's or whatever Apple calls them.

[xli_ne]

Of course he would. Why would it be a bad thing for any PC company to offer a different OS? But it won't happen, at least not yet.

totally agree. he would be stupid not too if jobs ever does, which I believe he won't. hopefully anyway

[zap2]

Mac OS need goood hardware to run on ,many dell computers will make Mac OS slow and crappy, if Dell computers would run Mac OS like computers made by apple i'd be for it ,but since they would most likly would run like crap i say no. Dell makes to many low cost computers( thats are crappy) to make anything that could run Mac OS and show how great it really is. Dell computer would make it run slow and choppy , then people would be like" well since it runs like crap on my 399 computer with like 128 ram it must run like crap on all computers." Keep apple as software and hardware. It one of the reason that OSX easy to use.

[Mac-Xpert]

I'm already not to happy with the switch to Intel. But running Mac OS-X on a Dell is really the limit.

However I do wonder what happens if Steve Jobs would license to Dell and at the next WWDC say: "Mac OS-X runs great on a Dell" Somehow I think that all the people that are now saying Dell sucks all of a sudden will say "Oh yeah Dell is great, this is the best thing that ever happened to Apple and Mac OS" ;)

[itcomesinwaves]

YOU FORGOT THE IPOD...even though thats not a computer...all dell has is that STUPID DJ...which is a complete knockoff of the genuine ipod...I HATE DEll...have i told you that?


Didn't Dell sell the iPod for a short period of time? After it became Windows compatible and started to really take off... Then they threw the DellDJ together and dropped the iPod.

[Mitthrawnuruodo]

Not every PC uses cares about the hardware - just as long as it runs their software and does what they want it to do. You know - Dell machines does this fine for a lot of PC owners - at a cheap price.But I don't want the cheapest computer possible. And Dell is about putting together the cheapest parts possible. I want quality. And quality cost a little extra. (Even though the 20" Dell/Apple screen price difference is ridiculous).

If Apple starts licensing its OS we're heading for the clone (resisting urge to put in 'wars' here) mess all over again... :mad:

[MacRy]

If OSX was licenced for any old hardware where would that leave Apple with it's own kit? It isn't exactly cutting edge at the moment and if consumers can buy something cheaper and more powerful and still have a great OS (OSX) on it then that's what they'll do. I personally love the Apple hardware and it is one of the major draws for me but not everyone is an aesthete and will be happy to run OSX on any dull looking piece of plastic crap.

[acedickson]

I'm on the fence about the possibility of the Mac OS (whatever version) becoming readily available to any, and all, PC users.

On one hand, I like the idea of being able to build my own machine and install this great OS on it.

On the other, I do love Apple's hardware and think it would hurt sales in the long run.

Sure, the Mac faithful would continue to buy their hardware...maybe. But, the reason for this switch is to increase sales and marketshare of their hardware. Making OS X+ available to PC users wouldn't increase either of those.

[Object-X]

Mac OS need goood hardware to run on ,many dell computers will make Mac OS slow and crappy, if Dell computers would run Mac OS like computers made by apple i'd be for it ,but since they would most likly would run like crap i say no. Dell makes to many low cost computers( thats are crappy) to make anything that could run Mac OS and show how great it really is. Dell computer would make it run slow and choppy , then people would be like" well since it runs like crap on my 399 computer with like 128 ram it must run like crap on all computers." Keep apple as software and hardware. It one of the reason that OSX easy to use.

Keep in mind that Apple could make it available with conditions. They could certify it with only certain hardware components. Dell sells Linux, but only on certain systems, like the Optiplex and certain Poweredge servers. A Dell computer with OS X would be in a similar situation. I think fears that OS X would be shipped with inferior hardware and become as buggy as Windows are overblown. Apple could control this issue.

[Lacero]

I think it's a great idea. Sorry, but with Dell's reputation in business and PC consumers, Apple could stand to benefit greatly. If Hell needs to freeze over for the fourth time, then so be it.

[Windowlicker]

It's going to happen, it's all just a matter of time.

It might not be soon, but there will be a day when you can walz in to Best Buy and buy Mac OS (enter version here), go home, and install it on the PC you already own.

I think it's great, I don't know what all the 'heart break' is about.


Apple now has something like 100 (?) different setups that can run OSX now. If OSX is going to be the OS of any computer, the number of different systems will be much, much more. And that leads to problems with compatibility, which is something the folks at Apple don't want for sure.

[nagromme]

My distaste for Dells aside, there is a MIDDLE GROUND between the two extremes:

* Apple keeping OS X to themselves, running only on Macs--as currently we expect. (Rebranding Apple Macs--if a company like HP ever did so--still falls under "keeping it to themselves" in my book. The HP iPod is no different after all--still in Apple's control, and all sales are still Apple sales.)

Vs.

* Apple selling it to anyone with an Intel PC--which could make a lot of software money, but would make OS X's complexity and support costs skyrocket (probably reducing quality)... and remove the benefits of hardware and OS designed together... and potentially take away from Apple's own hardware business (unless the Mac market grew to compensate--an interesting gamble).

What's the middle ground?

Apple doesn't sell OS X to PC owners. They don't sell it OEM to just any old PC makers either.

But they sell it to one (or a few) selected partners, and have a big say in the hardware specs. Thus, OS X doesn't become more complex to maintain and support, AND the Pandora's Box of OS X on any old PC stays firmly closed. Yet there are now two or three sources of OS X machines, rather than one. Apple lets go of SOME control, in a strategic way.

I can see that happening some time, if the time is right and partnerships can be found that would deal with Apple's concerns.

Maybe Dell, maybe not--but I can see one day there being some "generic PC" Macs out there, costing just slightly less--or maybe being only on the LOW end of the Mac lineup.

It might not be a bad thing for Apple, if done in a controlled way with select partners only.

I'm not saying it will be a good thing either--the timing would have to be right in the market--but I can see it happening and not being the end of the world.

[joeboy_45101]

To suggest that Apple is solely a hardware company is ridiculous. Apple has morphed into more than just selling computer hardware or software. The software sells the hardware but software is a higher margin product than hardware.

If a user manual is provided with the software it actually costs more to produce than the media in which the software is stored on. Hell, even the box that the software is sold in costs more than the disk that holds the software. Apple may have relied on good free software to sell machinery in the past but I would say that things are more balanced. Large revenue is made by selling packages like iLife and iWork and selling services like .Mac. And selling music through the Music Store has even become slightly profitable for Apple, I remember Jobs mentioning that Apple had made a small profit one quarter from the Music Store.

I see Apple morphing even further into a media technology company. Providing the best tools for the production and playback of state of the art media such as Audio, Photography, and Video.

[cube]

I just cant see Dells w/ OS X in them. It's like putting a BMW engine in a Hyundai.

Dude, "Macs" will be Hyundais. Mac as BMW is finished.

[Stella]

The Key is here: *You* don't.

No one is forcing *You* to buy a dell, *you* have the option of many other quality manufacturers, including Apple.

For many *other* people, the hardware doesn't matter, a Dell just works fine.

If apple license to other PC manufacturers they will have to support more hardware, and the more hardware is supported the less reliable the OS will be, due to the more likelyhood of badly written drivers.


But I don't want the cheapest computer possible. And Dell is about putting together the cheapest parts possible. I want quality. And quality cost a little extra. (Even though the 20" Dell/Apple screen price difference is ridiculous).

If Apple starts licensing its OS we're heading for the clone (resisting urge to put in 'wars' here) mess all over again... :mad:

[AoWolf]

Its interesting stuff like this makes me think, do we like our macs because they are different or because its the best OS. I know it could be augured you would lose OS quality buy doing this and that may well be true. I wonder how many of us really want Macintosh to be the #1 market-share OS? I know I don't.

[shazammy]

Didn't Dell sell the iPod for a short period of time? After it became Windows compatible and started to really take off... Then they threw the DellDJ together and dropped the iPod.


No.

[Paul O'Keefe]

Dell sells direct. Apple sells direct. Apple doesn't need Dell to sell it's software or hardware... apple just needs to make it's direct sales bigger and it's inventory better.

Apple needs to push the Apple store big time and make sure it has products available in a timely fashion to meet demand.

[excalibur313]

You must admit that a dell with os x would be better than a dell with windows. It's true that the hardware in dell's really suck but i think some of you are being a little bit overly dramatic. Even if that happened i'd still buy all my hardware from apple because the build quality is far better (you do get what you pay for though). I think it would only affect those that wouldn't switch anyway. And then they'd see how good it is but how much the hardware sucks and then fully switch over.

[Object-X]

i would rather shoot myself than see dells with OS X

It's attitudes like yours that make the possibility of Apple hardware sales suffering becuase of clones laughable. There are enough people who feel this way that no matter what Apple does with OS X, there will always be a market for Apple computers.

There will always be a demand for Apple hardware.

[itcomesinwaves]

regarding my assertion that Dell sold iPods at one point...

No.

Actually I just looked it up, and I was right, they did.

http://news.com.com/2100-1040-963901.html

article includes this great quote:
"We don't consider Apple a competitor across the full range of products," said Dell spokeswoman Mary Fad. "Maybe it would be odd if we had iMacs on the store (Web site)."

[obeygiant]

From front page...



Didn't he say its about software?


yeah... "its the software, stupid."

[zv470]

This would probablly be one of the greatest things to happen for OS X ever!

Noooooooo!!!! :eek:
This would be the worst thing ever!


This is what would happen:

1) OS X enters the mainstream PC market.
2) OS X and Mac software piracy sky-rockets.
3) Say hello to OS X Virii, Adware, Spyware, Malware.
4) DELL buys out Apple for $0.10 a share. :(


Edit: And... while I'm in a bad mood... EMI stop your blimmen Copy-Protection ********* and I'll stop boycotting your music.

[Josh]

Dude, "Macs" will be Hyundais. Mac as BMW is finished.

Considering Hyundai was ranked #2 behind Lexus for customer satisfaction and quality last year, I don't think that's such a bad thing ;)

http://money.cnn.com/2004/10/04/pf/autos/hyundai/index.htm?cnn=yes

[wdlove]

Dell sells direct. Apple sells direct. Apple doesn't need Dell to sell it's software or hardware... apple just needs to make it's direct sales bigger and it's inventory better.

Apple needs to push the Apple store big time and make sure it has products available in a timely fashion to meet demand.

I think that Michael Dell likes to hear himself talk. It's a mater of business and making money. It would be a bad idea.

Apple doesn't need Dell. There is a need for more advertising on the part of Apple.

[iMeowbot]

Didn't Dell sell the iPod for a short period of time? After it became Windows compatible and started to really take off... Then they threw the DellDJ together and dropped the iPod.
Yeah, they were selling iPod for a while. That Dell decided to put together their own might be the biggest reason for Apple not to license to them. Not because Dell dropped the iPod, but because Dell has that commodity mindset.

[Mac-Xpert]

It's attitudes like yours that make the possibility of Apple hardware sales suffering becuase of clones laughable. There are enough people who feel this way that no matter what Apple does with OS X, there will always be a market for Apple computers.

There will always be a demand for Apple hardware.Licensing will very likely hurt Apples hardware sales. Simply looking back at the time that Apple licensed Mac-OS to several hardware vendors the sales went down while the total amount of Mac-os running computers hardly grew. That's why Steve Jobs stopped the licensing. I don't think it will be much different today.

[cube]

Considering Hyundai was ranked #2 behind Lexus for customer satisfaction and quality last year, I don't think that's such a bad thing ;)

I just repeated the brand he used. I understand Hyundais are pretty good cars. For me, "Macs" will be something like Yugos with good looks.

[narco]

Damn, we all see what a moan-fest it was when Apple knocked up Intel, image the drama (and potential nerd-suicides) if Apple ever releases OS X for just any PC.

Personally, I wouldn't really mind at this point. I've already accepted the fact of all the Intel business. Whether OS X is released on a PC or an old 8-bit Nintendo, the same crap is going to be said: no software, no games, not compatible with your existing stuff. This kind of transition could take a long time, but it's off to a good start (so far).

All I know is I will continue to buy Macintosh computers as long as they're made. Apple had a hit with the iPod, and (some say) due to that they were finally able to create a low-end Mac. If Apple's marketshare goes up dramatically due to porting OS X to run on any PC, I can only imagine what great stuff (and cheaper prices) they'll be able to put out in the future.

To sum it up: OS X on a Dell? Go for it; I just won't buy one.

Fishes,
narco.

[gwangung]

My distaste for Dells aside, there is a MIDDLE GROUND between the two extremes:

* Apple keeping OS X to themselves, running only on Macs--as currently we expect. (Rebranding Apple Macs--if a company like HP ever did so--still falls under "keeping it to themselves" in my book. The HP iPod is no different after all--still in Apple's control, and all sales are still Apple sales.)

Vs.

* Apple selling it to anyone with an Intel PC--which could make a lot of software money, but would make OS X's complexity and support costs skyrocket (probably reducing quality)... and remove the benefits of hardware and OS designed together... and potentially take away from Apple's own hardware business (unless the Mac market grew to compensate--an interesting gamble).

What's the middle ground?

Apple doesn't sell OS X to PC owners. They don't sell it OEM to just any old PC makers either.

But they sell it to one (or a few) selected partners, and have a big say in the hardware specs. Thus, OS X doesn't become more complex to maintain and support, AND the Pandora's Box of OS X on any old PC stays firmly closed. Yet there are now two or three sources of OS X machines, rather than one. Apple lets go of SOME control, in a strategic way.

I can see that happening some time, if the time is right and partnerships can be found that would deal with Apple's concerns.

Maybe Dell, maybe not--but I can see one day there being some "generic PC" Macs out there, costing just slightly less--or maybe being only on the LOW end of the Mac lineup.

It might not be a bad thing for Apple, if done in a controlled way with select partners only.

I'm not saying it will be a good thing either--the timing would have to be right in the market--but I can see it happening and not being the end of the world.

Yeah, pretty spot on...a very nuanced and realistic look at potential future strategy.

Obviously, the time to use other vendors is NOT now. Way too much chaos right now, and changing your business paradigm takes a hell of a lot of planning...at least as much, if not more so, than an architecture change.
Trying to do both at once is asking for trouble.

We're probably not going to see this for AT LEAST three or four years, and probably not until Intel/Macs make up a major portion or majority of the installed user base.

[Stella]

Viruses would be targetted towards OSX if it got to a certain point of popularity, with or without Dells help.

I hope your not one of those people who think that Apple computers shouldn't have a more than 5% marketshare... ;-)

Noooooooo!!!! :eek:
This would be the worst thing ever!


This is what would happen:

1) OS X enters the mainstream PC market.
2) OS X and Mac software piracy sky-rockets.
3) Say hello to OS X Virii, Adware, Spyware, Malware.
4) DELL buys out Apple for $0.10 a share. :(

[iDrinkKoolAid]

I could see them doing a deal with HP/Compaq and IBM, but not Dell.

Though I could see Dell selling the Mactel's or whatever Apple calls them.

HP/Compaq? They make some of the worst laptops I've seen. My boss had a Compaq laptop and the left mouse button broke after 2 weeks. His business partner had an HP laptop and it wouldn't boot up after installing a PCMCIA Wi-Fi card.

Not that DULL laptops are great either. My friend had a top-of-the-line (not the XPS) DULL laptop and turns out the nVidia drivers were buggy. So he had to scrounge the Internet to find some random person who wrote a more stable driver for the thing. I've also seen him send back the thing to DULL for repairs many a time. (but I forgive him, as he could not figure out a way to author DVDs on a PC well, he broke down and bought an iBook G4 and DVD Studio Pro)

I believe the Mac OS should be licensed to Sony VAIO laptops - my favorite. At least it's got some style. It is ironic that Sony Design Center uses Macs to design VAIO PeeCees according to Paul Kunkel's Digital Dreams : The Work of the Sony Design Center. Another friend (administers PCs and Macs) has owned various flavors of the VAIO laptops, they are all somewhat nice to look at.

[Object-X]

This article and Dell's response should demonstrate how weak Microsoft is becoming. Those words have to be worrying Microsoft execs. Blood is in the water and the sharks are getting a little excited. :eek:

[emulator]

regarding my assertion that Dell sold iPods at one point...

Actually I just looked it up, and I was right, they did.

http://news.com.com/2100-1040-963901.html

article includes this great quote:
"We don't consider Apple a competitor across the full range of products," said Dell spokeswoman Mary Fad. "Maybe it would be odd if we had iMacs on the store (Web site)."
Right, they sold it, stopped selling it for a couple of months and then started to sell it again until their 'DJ' came out in 2003.

[ericdano]

I think that if Apple was to license their OS to anyone it would be with HP, seeing how they already have a relationship with them. But I doubt the chance of this happening anytime soon.. maybe, and I have my doubts, years after the processor switch is complete but not anytime sooner... at least that is my prediction. The only reason why I think apple would not do this is because it would set up competition for themselves and they are into making not only the best OS but the best computer experience.

Yeah. But what model will HP produce? That is the question. Could Apple produce enough computers on it's own if demand doubled? Tripled? I think they might be able to handle double, but triple...........

[ericdano]

1) Dell is the world's largest computer seller
2) "Nobody gets fired for buying from Dell"
3) Dell has the imprimature of the corporate market
4) Dell can scale better
5) Dell can cover the "cheap end" of the market
6) Dell can, in short, help increase market share especially in corporations, which is kinda vital, because with the under-2% corporate share right now, schools are sayin' ya gotta get Windows.

7) Dells are cheaply designed, and use cheap parts
8) Dells are not going to run OS X

[Mac-Xpert]

Noooooooo!!!! :eek:
This would be the worst thing ever!


This is what would happen:

1) OS X enters the mainstream PC market.
2) OS X and Mac software piracy sky-rockets.
3) Say hello to OS X Virii, Adware, Spyware, Malware.
4) DELL buys out Apple for $0.10 a share. :(Actually some of this might already happen because of the switch to Intel. Even if Apple doesn't license its OS to anyone officially they will still have a hard time stopping hackers to run Mac-OS on any PC they like. Software Piracy and Viruses could certainly become a problem in the future. Although Mac-OS is likely somewhat better protected against adware and spyware than windows so it probably will never reach the proportions on the windows platform.

[archer75]

Apple now has something like 100 (?) different setups that can run OSX now. If OSX is going to be the OS of any computer, the number of different systems will be much, much more. And that leads to problems with compatibility, which is something the folks at Apple don't want for sure.

It would'nt be a problem. OSX already works with optical drives, hard drives, ATI and Nvidia cards. What more is there that they need to support? Dell computers use Intel chipsets and Intel processors. And now OSX supports that too. It's already set.

Dell builds quality systems. And i'm willing to bet that the Intel Macs really won't be any different aside from the case which they will charge a premium for.

[redAPPLE]

This will never happen under Jobs. Whoever becomes CEO after him, well, that's another story.

that exact statement, is what i told a friend about all the rumors regarding Intel chips working with mac os x. see what happened? believe all the rumors from now on. there is an Apple-branded tablet pc, Disney will buy Apple and all those crazy rumors.

my first thought was, no Apple won't sell the os separately, because of compatibility problems. everyone would build a pc, with unknown components and once the customer can't make the thing run, it would be Apple's fault.

not the hardware company that made the "unknown" hardware.

[FriarTuck]

He's wants to be the head of a computer company much smaller than the one he's already head of?

Michael Dell is rich. Michael Dell is smart. But nobody ever stood in line to buy something because Michael Dell told them to. Nobody ever created a Michael Dell dress-up flash game (http://www.geekculture.com/joyoftech/joyarchives/692flash.html) . The encyclopedias of the future will have an entry for Michael Dell more similar to Sebastian S. Kresge than to Steve Jobs. I'm sure Michael Dell has many redeeming qualities. I'm sure his mother loves him and he is kind to animals. But I am also sure that Michael Dell is not cool, and will never be one of the "cool kids." And he has shown by his copycat moves (documented by As the Apple Turns (http://www.appleturns.com)) that he wants very much to be a "cool kid" like Steve Jobs.

[mac-er]

At the time, when he said that, it gave me shivers, because it really did make me think Steve was gearing up for operating system trench warfare with Microsoft... only time will tell.

I think you are reading too much into that...I think he is just trying to reassure all the people that said they would never buy a Mac again because it would have Intel inside.

[mwpeters8182]

I don't think we can compare licensing of this current OS to the clones of yesteryear. The OS now is a completely different beast.

MP

[ericdano]

You must admit that a dell with os x would be better than a dell with windows. It's true that the hardware in dell's really suck but i think some of you are being a little bit overly dramatic. Even if that happened i'd still buy all my hardware from apple because the build quality is far better (you do get what you pay for though). I think it would only affect those that wouldn't switch anyway. And then they'd see how good it is but how much the hardware sucks and then fully switch over.

Of course anything is BETTER than a Pinto. But putting OS X on your Pinto ain't going to make it cool. It's like hanging fuzzy dice from the rear view mirror. It doesn't work on a Pinto.

Seriously, Dell isn't going to run OS X. HP will first before Dell.

[archer75]

7) Dells are cheaply designed, and use cheap parts
8) Dells are not going to run OS X

They don't use cheap parts. You have Nvidia and ATI cards. Hitachi, Samsung, etc. hard drives. I have seen hitachi and NEC optical drives. The cases are well laid out and very clean on the inside.
They use Intel processors and an Intel chipset on the motherboards, which Apple will also use. All all components are high quality name brand parts so what's the difference?

Mark my words, the only difference between a Dell and an Intel Mac will be the case and the OS.

[rOckAPE]

I think Dell and any other PC company would be damn happy to have Mac OS X seeing that their ass could possibly be handed to them by Apple. The one computer company that can run any OS. That's a seller my friend. Not to mention the wealth of hardware upgrades it can take once they move to x86.

Sure, the Dells, Gateways, HP's etc. of the world would scream monopoly, but by then Apple would have made enormous amounts of cash and be willing to license their OS. I don't think Apple WANTS to keep OS X to itself. It just knows it's too small to stand up to MS right now. But if the above happened.... ;)

Here's the way I see it played out...

Step 1. Keep OS X on Apple boxes only
Step 2. License OS X to PC companies (Dell, Gateway, HP,..etc)
Step 3. OS X on store shelves for the enthusiast that likes to build their
systems.

Executed carefully, Apple would overtake MS as the dominate OS

IBM and MS crushed Apple one time to the point of ousting Steve Jobs ..he WILL NOT make that mistake again. You can say Apple is a "hardware" company now, but the writing is on the wall. Apple has an extremely powerful library of software now and it's growing.

[shamino]

Wow! It is incredibly amusing to see all these fanboys screaming "I hate Dell" without giving any reason for their hatred. Just as amusing as seeing all those Windows fanboys (over on comp.sys.mac.advocacy) demand that Mac users abandon their platforms.

WRT the article itself, Michael Dell talks a good game, but it's all talk. He knowns that Jobs won't allow Mac OS to be licensed for use on non-Apple systems, so he can say whatever he thinks the audience wants to hear.

But if the opportunity actually arises, all those words will be worthless. Yes, Dell sells some servers with Linux, but that's only for the servers. Go look at the inexpensive systems that most people buy and you'll find that you can only choose between WinXP home and WinXP pro.

Dell's Linux offerings are just token offerings so they can look good in the press. If they really wanted to support the platform, they'd offer it on all their systems.

I don't think Mac OS will be any different - offered only on some select models (probably those most similar to Apple's systems) and nothing else.

This kind of support, Apple doesn't need.

[zv470]

Viruses would be targetted towards OSX if it got to a certain point of popularity, with or without Dells help.

I hope your not one of those people who think that Apple computers shouldn't have a more than 5% marketshare... ;-)

First point... true. =]

Second point... I do and I don't. Apple computers are elite. But I do think they should have a larger market share than now to ensure them being around for a long time. :)

[Mac-Xpert]

Apple doesn't sell OS X to PC owners. They don't sell it OEM to just any old PC makers either.

But they sell it to one (or a few) selected partners, and have a big say in the hardware specs. Thus, OS X doesn't become more complex to maintain and support, AND the Pandora's Box of OS X on any old PC stays firmly closed. Yet there are now two or three sources of OS X machines, rather than one. Apple lets go of SOME control, in a strategic way.
I doubt that Apple will do that. They already tried that, and it didn't work out the way the liked (less hardware sale and hardly any increase in the market share of Mac-OS) Why would it work out differently this time?

[Mr5by5]

Here's a what-if: What if Apple sells a mini that runs on windows? I mean, we could be getting this all wrong. If apple is a hardware company...


Now I'm not saying that they would abandon osx, and god knows nobody here would buy that computer, but the "masses" might want to have the design without the the os. (or at least not the full version of the os)

[shamino]

It's attitudes like yours that make the possibility of Apple hardware sales suffering becuase of clones laughable. There are enough people who feel this way that no matter what Apple does with OS X, there will always be a market for Apple computers.

There will always be a demand for Apple hardware.
But no company can remain in business solely by selling to their own evangelists.

[n0mad256]

Emotional issues ("DELL sux0rs" etc) aside, there are two reasons why Apple licensing OS X to OEMs (ala Dell) is bad:

1) Apple has always been and will be for the forseeable future, a hardware company. This means nearly all their profits come from hardware, not software. It is because of these profits that Apple has the R&D money to continually improve on OS X. If Apple were to become a software company, they would need to have sales in the volumes that Microsoft has to stay very profitable. There's no way that kind of thing is happening overnight

2) Hardware compatibility. By only letting OS X run (officially at least) on Apple branded x86 Macs with a limited set of possible mobos/chipsets/perhiperals, etc., it is much easier to ensure compatibility. Part of the reason Windows is plagued with stability issues is that it has to run on the huge spectrum of x86 chipsets/motherboards/video cards etc. that are out there.

Sure you could limit problems that (2) would present by only letting it run on a select few OEM vendors (Dell and HP, for example), but that would still require Apple to put more resources into compatibility issues. Resources that would be lessened by profits going to Dell or HP that would otherwise go to Apple.

Of course, the fact that we're having this discussion about x86 OS X is proof enough that one should never say never when it comes to apple :)

[ericdano]

They don't use cheap parts. You have Nvidia and ATI cards. Hitachi, Samsung, etc. hard drives. I have hitachi and NEC optical drives. The cases are well laid out and very clean on the inside.
They use Intel processors and an Intel chipset on the motherboards, which Apple will also use.

Mark my words, the only difference between a Dell and an Intel Mac will be the case and the OS.

Yeah, ok, words marked. Dell still does not use quality parts. I've seen more Dells crap out than other brands.

[archer75]

Viruses would be targetted towards OSX if it got to a certain point of popularity, with or without Dells help.


The design of the OS really prevents viruses from becoming a problem on the mac. You have to have a system password to make any system changes.

I'm sure that hackers will find there way through security holes to find thier way inside your machine but I doubt viruses will ever become much of an issue on it.

[zv470]

I doubt that Apple will do that. They already tried that, and it didn't work out the way the liked (less hardware sale and hardly any increase in the market share of Mac-OS) Why would it work out differently this time?

Do you mean NeXTStep OS for Intel or do you mean when Apple allowed Mac Clones?

Edit: I guess you mean the Mac Clones, sorry :)

[Mac-Xpert]

Do you mean NeXTStep OS for Intel or do you mean when Apple allowed Mac Clones?

Edit: I guess you mean the Mac Clones, sorry :)
Yes I meant the clones. It was a bad idea back then, and I still thing its a bad idea today.

[mwpeters8182]

Yeah, ok, words marked. Dell still does not use quality parts. I've seen more Dells crap out than other brands.

Of all the computers I've owned, I've had problems with 3 of them requiring warantee service. One was a Dell, and the other two were made by some company who's name starts with A and ends with E...

As much as people want to harp on Dell's quality being bad, your favorite computer company also has the same issues - it's across the board - companies aren't making hardware that is as reliable anymore.

[Mac-Xpert]

Wow! It is incredibly amusing to see all these fanboys screaming "I hate Dell" without giving any reason for their hatred. Just as amusing as seeing all those Windows fanboys (over on comp.sys.mac.advocacy) demand that Mac users abandon their platforms.I hate Dell because they use those crappy way to hot running pentiums......oh wait Apple is going to be doing the same thing
;)

[Josh]

I hate Dell because they use those crappy way to hot running pentiums......oh wait Apple is going to be doing the same thing
;)

Yeah...the G5's aren't hot at all...lol

[nagromme]

I doubt that Apple will do that. They already tried that, and it didn't work out the way the liked (less hardware sale and hardly any increase in the market share of Mac-OS) Why would it work out differently this time?

I don't know if it would--but here's why it COULD:

Intel-based Macs have a HUGE waiting market that the old Mac clones never had.

Mac clones sold to the same people who were already buying Apple Macs, and that's about IT!

But HPs or Dells running OS X would reach a WIDER audience. And if they also could run Windows--which is just about a given--then suddenly they get the attention of those who use the world's majority platform. Mac clones never did that.

Any future "clone" situation would have very little in common with the last one.

[cube]

Yeah...the G5's aren't hot at all...lol

They are hot but not crappy. :mad:

[Frisco]

License your OS Steve! Don't make the same mistake twice or you'll get what you deserve--2-3% market-share.

The only problem I see with this is that you can kiss Ms Office for OS X goodbye :(

[redAPPLE]

know what the tragic part of this story is?

it started after the "third transition", the mac community is starting to crumble. before, we defend ourselves against the "dark empire wintel".

now we are joining (sort of) this dark empire. now we start discussing about Dell helping the mac platform or ruining it...

[Josh]

They are hot but not crappy. :mad:

Which is why Apple really isn't switching to Intel, it's all a big joke lol.

Intels are good processors. They aren't the hottest by any means, and not only ARE they faster than current PPC's, but Intel makes a lot more progress with their processors than IBM could ever come close to.

It seems a lot of the zealots/fanboys/etc don't like Intel because its "the cool thing to do." The claims are always baseless, and hating Intel is based more on fads than any facts.

[howarddavis]

It's going to happen, it's all just a matter of time.

It might not be soon, but there will be a day when you can walz in to Best Buy and buy Mac OS (enter version here), go home, and install it on the PC you already own.

I think it's great, I don't know what all the 'heart break' is about.

Apple is in the business of making money; they're not in the business of being a 'be different, rebel, don't conform' cult.

They will ALWAYS produce top-notch stuff. But their goal is just the same as any company: distrubute that top-notch stuff to as many customers as possible.

I honestly do think there will be a day when Apple will take over the computer industry, and Mac OS will be on the majority of user-computers, in the work-places etc. Mac OS is the future of computers. All in good time :D


what do you mean "they're not in the business of being a 'be different, rebel, don't conform' cult." they have been, are now, and always will be different and trying to be different than all the others. they are a rebel, just like jobs is. that is what makes mac mac.

[cube]

Which is why Apple really isn't switching to Intel, it's all a big joke lol.

Intels are good processors. They aren't the hottest by any means, and not only ARE they faster than current PPC's, but Intel makes a lot more progress with their processors than IBM could ever come close to.

It seems a lot of the zealots/fanboys/etc don't like Intel because its "the cool thing to do." The claims are always baseless, and hating Intel is base more on fads than any facts.

FACT: The x86 ISA is crap.

[tdewey]

I hate Dell because they use those crappy way to hot running pentiums......oh wait Apple is going to be doing the same thing
;)

I have a Dell Pentium-M notebook that is much cooler than my 12" G4.

If I had to buy another Windows notebook (and I don't see my sig) I'd buy from either Dell or HP. Toshiba used to be good but has gone downhill.

I'm on the fence with the thread issue.

1) Obviously lots o' money and marketshare can be gained by just being an OS only company (see Microsoft).

2) However, the Mac's big advantage over a PC is the tight integration of hardware and software--no picking your nose over a thousand different drivers and legacy code.

[jaw04005]

Apple is a hardware company, selling just the O/S would put us back where we were in the mid-90's.

However, if Apple was to build the box and the sell the box with the O/S to HP or Dell, and allow them to rebrand it. That may be a possibility.

Can you imagine HP Mac mini's? Not THAT far fetched. :eek:

[Mitthrawnuruodo]

The Key is here: *You* don't.

No one is forcing *You* to buy a dell, *you* have the option of many other quality manufacturers, including Apple.

For many *other* people, the hardware doesn't matter, a Dell just works fine.

If apple license to other PC manufacturers they will have to support more hardware, and the more hardware is supported the less reliable the OS will be, due to the more likelyhood of badly written drivers.No... the key word is quality, and letting Mac OS X loose on questionable hardware is not the way to go, that will only hurt Apple, BIG time.

If you don't care about quality, get a Dell, by all means, and run whatever low-quality OS (i.e. Windows) if you're clueless or any more secure OS (Linux/BSD) if you're a techie...

[iMeowbot]

Yes I meant the clones. It was a bad idea back then, and I still thing its a bad idea today.
It's a whole different world now, though. Apple don't even make computer components any more, at most they do final assembly in markets where that gives them a tax break. They do the design work and farm out the manufacturing.

The iPods are a good example. In a sense, there are no "real" iPods as in "made by Apple", they're all "clones" built by Inventec and Asustek. HP has a license of sorts, but all they really do is buy the finished hardware from an Apple-approved builder (in fact, the same who build Apple's own), to Apple's specifications. HP does marketing, distribution and support. A Mac "clone" model like that might work for Apple, and really it's not far off from their traditional dealer model (oh, and if those dealers were angsty now, just watch out).

[Josh]

what do you mean "they're not in the business of being a 'be different, rebel, don't conform' cult." they have been, are now, and always will be different and trying to be different than all the others. they are a rebel, just like jobs is. that is what makes mac mac.

Well yes, but they are different in the means of being innovative, creative and making quality stuff (all of which are rare in today's business).

What I'm saying is, Apple is not in the business of creating a cult of 'Intel-Windows-Dell-PC bashing users' They are not trying to do what all the Mac fans on the net think should be done.

Apple wants to a)Create awesome products and b)Make as much money as possible with those products.

Apple does not think a low market share makes them 'cool,' though some users do. They are not trying to make themselves different by being 'the little guy.'<---That's the point I'm going for.

[FriarTuck]

... the Mac's big advantage over a PC is the tight integration of hardware and software--no picking your nose over a thousand different drivers and legacy code.

I agree 100 percent. How can Janie Porche (http://spherule.com/media/video/switch/janie_porche.mov) save Christmas 2006 if she has to download a bunch of Mac OS X drivers?

[swissmann]

I hope this never happens.

[Mitthrawnuruodo]

The Register (http://www.theregister.co.uk/2005/06/16/dell_eyes_apple/) has picked up the story. They don't think this is a good idea (at this point in time), either...

[BornAgainMac]

It won't happen because that would kill Microsoft. They need to exist so we can make fun of them.

[iMeowbot]

I agree 100 percent. How can Janie Porche (http://spherule.com/media/video/switch/janie_porche.mov) save Christmas 2006 if she has to download a bunch of Mac OS X drivers?
That's an interesting thing about OS X. Support for devices like that, using USB or FiyahWiyah, shouldn't really change at all. (and to get my old card reader to work with OS X, I did need to install a driver!)

[amac4me]

The Macrumors.com front page has now picked up the story ... they're referencing the same Fortune article I linked to when I opened this thread,

[jaw04005]

I've purchased three Dell's for our business, and own one 8300 personally. I have not had any problems with any of the four Dell boxes I've dealt with over the last three years.

I had a Dell LCD go out after a few weeks use, and over their web chat I ordered another one. The new LCD was delivered the next day via UPS. The UPS driver then placed a label on the broken LCD and took it away. Simple procedure, the most I had to do was spend 5 minutes on web chat with a Dell employee and box the LCD up. They didn't even ask for a credit card to "secure" the return.

I also purchased an Apple Cinema Display last year. The display completely died after three days of usage. I called Apple, they refused to return the product, instead wanted me to drive 100 miles to the Memphis Apple Store to have the product serviced. I fought with them for over an hour until finally they gave in. They "snail mailed" me an Airborne Express shipping label (took 3 days to get to my house). I placed the label on the product and shipped it back same day. Ten days later, I received a new Apple Cinema Display, which by the way had three dead pixels. I will never purchase another Apple display again.

In my opinion, Apple could learn a few things about customer service, quality control, and logistics from Dell.

Then again, Dell is no innovator. Dell looks at what everyone else in the industry does and copies it. They have one of the lowest R&D budgets in the entire industry, and they are proud of it. Must be nice to sit back and let Apple and to some extent HP innovate in the computer industry, then rip off their designs for much less $$$. :confused:

[mxpiazza]

i think there will come a time that apple *does* license out its OS, but it will do so when and only when the parameters of such a deal make too much sense to ignore. I don't think we'll ever be able to pick up a retail version of OSX at Best Buy and put it on our Dell, because that would kill Apple's margin on hardware.

A lot depends on how successful this transition really is, but if Apple allows, and microsoft/developers support Apple's hardware to have dual bootable partitions of Windows/OSX, then their need to license out the OS wouldn't really be there, since the dual-boot capability would be such a strong selling point.

if Apple ever does license out the OS, they will do it with a company that they have an extremley close business relationship with, possibly in a "you scratch my back, i scratch yours" situation. possibly HP, possibly Sony... there is a lot of innovation to be paved in the next few years, and the direction of those innovations, and how closely Apple and these other companies are tied to them, will dictate the licensing policy of OSX in the future.

i just wouldn't look for it for at least 3 years, probably 5.

[rmhop81]

i'm somewhat of a recent switcher, i haven't fully switched over bc i have a 12inch powerbook as well as a dell desktop. I'm not a huge fan of windows but i will get by on it. I really enjoy using OS X, but what i think is going to happen is, apple is going to be using the same parts as most pc manufacturer's today....but since it's apple of course they are gonna upcharge to an insane price. I'm kinda in the situation right now, i don't wanna use my powerbook as my main machine bc i don't want it running all day and night. I've been looking to get a mac mini, but i can't justify paying $500 just so i can run OS X. My dell desktop has everything i need even has wireless as well too. I think this is going to be a big problem, bc no one is going to pay $400 extra for the exact same hardware package JUST so they can run OS X instead of windows.

When this whole intel deal goes down i hope apple will readjust all their prices, bc if they don't i think they will have a hard time selling when they have competitors like dell who will have the same exact specs and be several hundred dollars cheaper. So i think people will be very interested in apple @ first but then realize everything is essentially the same hardware wise and the only premium they are paying for is for OS X to run on the computer. How people are today with windows they will be fine settling with it for more years to come. i know ill settle with my dell and won't purchase a mini just for these reasons. they aren't going to have anything to pay premium for except for the OS and OS X isn't that popular otherwise apple would be bigger than they are today. be interesting to see what happens.

[feakbeak]

I'm amazed at how disturbed some posters here are about the notion of OS X running on Dell hardware or it would seem anything else than Apple hardware. I really enjoy computers, PCs and Macs. I work with them, use them for multimedia, internet, games, a lot of stuff. I enjoy tinkering with hardware and new software. The fact that one OS might run on a different set of hardware doesn't really affect me all that much. I may have a preference one way or another, but I cannot imagine this type of speculation making someone physically ill - that's just silly.

I hope this does happen. Apple has great hardware and beautiful designs but from a business/market perspective it only makes sense to offer your other products (software) to the broadest market possible. Since not everyone would want to spend the premium price for Apple hardware (note: I'm not saying it is not worth it, just that it is not for everyone) why should Apple limit the market on their OS/software.

I don't think Apple OEM'ing OS X will happen soon, but I hope it does happen eventually. Everyone says that the large amount of hardware support would make it impossible, but I don't think so. I'm sure that OS X would have to be expanded/tweaked for it, but Apple could do it. The bulk of the work would come from third-party hardware/accessory companies to write the necessary drivers for OS X. However, if Dell was selling machines with OS X, I'm sure more hardware manufacturers would start writing drivers for OS X. Plus, Apple could start out with limited OEM'ing such as allowing Dell to sell OS X on different hardware but requiring certain specifications to be made so that Apple doesn't have to support everything under the sun right away, as this article mentions.

While OEM'ing OS X might allow Apple to pick up a lot more marketshare on the consumer side, I do not see Apple ever making in-roads to the business sector. This is a completely different market and would require Apple to change the entire focus of the company - I do not believe Apple has any intentions to do this, nor would I welcome it as it would distract from the end-user/consumer focus that Apple puts into their hardware and software products.

I thought this was a great article with a fair assessment of the current situation and options available to Apple.

[Mitthrawnuruodo]

The Macrumors.com front page has now picked up the story ... they're referencing the same Fortune article I linked to when I opened this thread,It's this thread they're linking to... ;)

[paulypants]

Mac OS X on a Dell would make for a plain 'ol bad computing experience...

[amac4me]

It's this thread they're linking to... ;)

Cool ... I didn't know that ... I made the frontpage on macrumors.com ... :cool: :D :eek: ;)

[FoxyKaye]

Didn't he say its about software?
Yep - something in his keynote also came to mind for me, along the lines of The heart of Apple is it's OS, not the chips on which it runs.

But of course he was probably talking about Apple hardware.

Still though - if Apple can still make $$$ from licensing its OS to Dell, in this day and age, why the hell not? Nothing is stopping Dell from adding a tiny hardware verification in the BIOS or elsewhere that will only allow OS X to be installed on its machines (not Compaqs, HPs, eMachines, or white boxes) that would be similar to the verification Apple would presumably put in its own Intel machines. Drivers shrmivers - if Apple needs them for Dell's (or HP's, or whoever's) hardware, they'll get written. And, Apple will do what it usually does and say, we don't support anything that doesn't come with the machine or isn't sold through us (or in this example, Dell).

I agree ... I think Steve Jobs will approach the OS differently this time around ... his previous decision helped make Microsoft what it is today. I don't think he'll make the same mistake twice.
There's a little more to it than that, but Steve's always been hard-headed, and the lesson he perhaps learned from getting tossed out of Apple the first time was perhaps to be a little more flexible.

I think you're right. Microsoft is the IBM of Apple's 1984 commercial - it's certainly a better target than what Apple was looking at 20 years ago. Windows is crap - I just spent 6 hours on a friend's XP computer this past weekend weeding out all kinds of viruses, spyware, malware and so forth. Why not go head-to-head? The way I see it, as long as Apple makes the cash and keeps it flowing, fine - then they can make all the iPods they want with their fat R&D department.

I don't buy the arguments that if OS X had greater distribution it would a) put Apple out of business, and b) be as overwhelmed with the types of systemic infections that afflict Windows PCs. Apple's not dumb - if OS X goes to the generic PC market, they'll make damn sure they make money. If OS X gets even 10% of the installed operating system base there will be more developer interest (and let me tell you, I work at a nonprofit that needs fundraising software and all of the decent vendors don't support OS X), and yes, there will be more folks vying to be the first to crack it with malware. But Windows and OS X are leagues apart in terms of what the base OS will let applications get away with - even on Intel chips (please remember it's not the chips that create viral infections, it's the OS). It's simply harder to break, period. Someone will eventually write something that cracks OS X, but it won't nearly be on the scale that current Windows PCs encounter/

Sorry to be a little ranty, but really, the sky's not falling. Apple's re-positioning themselves like all companies do - one great example of this is Hyundai: they make skis, cars, computer hardware and memory. It's about making the $$$, and that's what's going to keep Apple and OS X alive in the next 25 years, not hardware sales alone.

The "damn the world, we make better stuff" Apple we knew went out the window at WWDC when they actually made a solid business decision and announced it in plenty of time for developers and others to get on board. The experience of the end-user may not differ much from the PPC to Intel switch, but I think it represents a major shift in how Apple perceives itself as a company.

[feakbeak]

Then again, Dell is no innovator. Dell looks at what everyone else in the industry does and copies it. They have one of the lowest R&D budgets in the entire industry, and they are proud of it. Must be nice to sit back and let Apple and to some extent HP innovate in the computer industry, then rip off their designs for much less $$$. :confused:Dell's practices are not very admirable, but it's great for business!

[feakbeak]

Mac OS X on a Dell would make for a plain 'ol bad computing experience...When you are computing are you staring at the hardware or using the OS and applications?

Maybe you and I just compute differently, but your point is lost on me.

[CorvusCamenarum]

In other related news, the company that makes vienna sausages and potted meat has offered to start selling Angus beef steaks and prime rib, packaged in their ugly tin cans.

[VicMacs]

Damn, all you people are funny!

This would probablly be one of the greatest things to happen for OS X ever!

but not for apple and the mac in general....

Why would people spend 1300 on an imac when they can spend 600 on a dell pc with the same system..? apple wouldnt sell hardware at all... this topic is old... whats coming to BOSTON!?

[bretm]

Let's not forget that the new Apple hardware will run windows. So doesn't anyone realize that Apple's potential hardware market just went through the roof?

This thing is going to happen. Apple considers itself a hardware company? Well I argue that they're a software and ipod company. Their hardware has been slowly becoming standard intel machines, just without the chip. Drives,standard ATA. Monitor ports, standard. RAM, standard. Now chip, standard. Apple will truly be a hardware manufacturer, since they will be making boxes that will run either OS.

Now that's interesting! Apple machines can run the operating system of your choice and come preinstalled with OSX. The intel chips will lower the price of the machines probably to the Sony level.

Steve Jobs mentioned once that he really thought his only competition (in the home computer / home multimedia biz) was Sony. They were the only ones competing in the whole iLife scenario.

Maybe OSX isn't coming too soon for standard PCs. But I'd bet you see iLife sold for windows next. Then iWork. Then, the FCP studio suite. Then, when everyone really digs the software better than windows, and if people aren't buying the mac intel hardware, then OSX for Windows.

[Roller]

I think Michael Dell's gonna have to take back his recommendation that Apple be dismantled and that the proceeds be given to its shareholders before this happens. :)

[feakbeak]

but not for apple and the mac in general....

Why would people spend 1300 on an imac when they can spend 600 on a dell pc with the same system..? apple wouldnt sell hardware at all... this topic is old... whats coming to BOSTON!?Because the iMac is much nicer looking and can have wi-fi and Bluetooth build-in. Apple's hardware may not always be superior in terms of specs, but their designs are head and shoulders above the competition. OEM'ing OS X would hurt their hardware sales, no doubt. Apple would need to have a good business strategy in place before they started allowing every x86 hardware manufacturer to pre-load OS X. Still, I do not believe this problem is insurmountable.

[bretm]

Because the iMac is much nicer looking and can have wi-fi and Bluetooth build-in. Apple's hardware may not always be superior in terms of specs, but their designs are head and shoulders above the competition. OEM'ing OS X would hurt their hardware sales, no doubt. Apple would need to have a good business strategy in place before they started allowing every x86 hardware manufacturer to pre-load OS X. Still, I do not believe this problem is insurmountable.

An imac with intel inside will probably cost much less. Say 899.

[camomac]

I've purchased three Dell's for our business, and own one 8300 personally. I have not had any problems with any of the four Dell boxes I've dealt with over the last three years.Except for virus's, security patches, and a plethora of other crap that you probably had to worry about to make sure you didn't lose data.

I had a Dell LCD go out after a few weeks use, and over their web chat I ordered another one. The new LCD was delivered the next day via UPS. The UPS driver then placed a label on the broken LCD and took it away. Simple procedure, the most I had to do was spend 5 minutes on web chat with a Dell employee and box the LCD up. They didn't even ask for a credit card to "secure" the return.

I also purchased an Apple Cinema Display last year. The display completely died after three days of usage. I called Apple, they refused to return the product, instead wanted me to drive 100 miles to the Memphis Apple Store to have the product serviced. I fought with them for over an hour until finally they gave in. They "snail mailed" me an Airborne Express shipping label (took 3 days to get to my house). I placed the label on the product and shipped it back same day. Ten days later, I received a new Apple Cinema Display, which by the way had three dead pixels. I will never purchase another Apple display again.Sorry for your bad experience. I'm sure your dell looked funny with such a nice looking Apple display anyways.

In my opinion, Apple could learn a few things about customer service, quality control, and logistics from Dell.
Dude, you should just switch back to dell if it is such a problem for you.

Then again, Dell is no innovator. Dell looks at what everyone else in the industry does and copies it. They have one of the lowest R&D budgets in the entire industry, and they are proud of it. Must be nice to sit back and let Apple and to some extent HP innovate in the computer industry, then rip off their designs for much less $$$. :confused:Yes. Confused.

[jayscheuerle]

This won't happen for many reasons, but one trumps all.

Jobs is concerned with his legacy and creating something world changing. That is NOT a beautiful box that runs Windows and it's NOT running a beautiful OS on an ugly PC. His desire to control EVERYTHING and his belief that he can deliver the best possible personal computer user experience is what drives Apple. This is EVIDENT in EVERYTHING Apple does.

Apple doesn't sell hardware. Apple doesn't sell software. Apple sells an experience, and that requires an integration of both hardware and software.

Apple does EVERYTHING in order to get you to buy into the whole experience. They don't want you using iTunes to manage your Dell Jukebox and they don't want you using Musicmatch to manage your iPod.

Of course DELL wants to be Jobs. Jobs will be remembered. Dell will not. Dell is impressive from a business perspective, but that mark does not have the repercussive staying power that a shaper of culture does.

Apple won't take over the world by offering OSX for PCs. They'd die. Macs are nothing without OSX and the OSX experience would be lessened by allowing it on classless boxes.

Macs are the left hand. OSX is the right. Apple needs both in order to hear the applause. - j

[Doctor Q]

In discussing this publicly, Michael Dell could be testing the waters, making an overture to Apple, trying to put pressure on Apple to open up, or simply be talking too much. Steve Jobs isn't likely to warm to a public dance; he prefers back-room negotiations. I don't expect Apple to respond to this.

[amac4me]

Let's not forget this simple fact ... Apple's CURRENT strength is their operating system OS X. I know we can all sit and argue about how great Mac hardware is right now but without solving the G5 speed increase and heat issues, Apple would have found themselves behind all other manufacturers. It wouldn't be a compelling argument for Apple to say .. hey, we have a 2.7GHz G5 processor that is faster/better than a 3.8 GHz Pentium. The average consumer thinks processor speed is the most important spec in a system. Just go down to your local Best Buy or Comp USA and the sales associates alway tout processor speed. Not only that, the product descriptions ALWAYS list the processor speed first.

I think Apple finally got a sense of the average consumer and how best to market and sell to them with the iPod. The lessons learned are changing the culture within Apple and this knowledge will find it's way to Macs ... thus, one of the reasons for the Intel switch.

[jayscheuerle]

An imac with intel inside will probably cost much less. Say 899.

With Intel's chips being more expensive, how do you see this?

[JGowan]

This will never happen while Jobs is running things.

Steve knows how Proud & Honorable the "Mac Few" are and how irate we would be if he just gave his OS to anyone with any type of computer. Why would he gamble like that? He would destroy all credibility with us. There is just no guarantee that enough PC owners would jump on board to offset the huge chasm he's created between Apple and the Apple Community.

[Avicdar]

Apple is an innovation company. Period. Whether that innovation takes form in hardware, software or business practice is not really the point.

This (Apple licensing OSX on PC's) absolutely IS going to happen. Do the math. How much real profit does Apple make from selling something like a G5 iMac? I would guess around $400. Now, how many computer users of the potential user basedo they sell a $400 profit margin machine to? Lets say 5%. (It is actually much less than that, since the Mac Mini wrecks the average profit, but I will err on the side of inflating the profit to make the point)

If Apple were to simply STOP making hardware altogether (which they won't) and then begin to allow OSX to be sold to any PC platform (not just Dell) they could realize a profit of, perhaps somewhere between 50-75 dollars for each copy of OSX they sell. So, how many copies of OSX could Apple license at that profit level if it were allowed to run on any PC configuration?

Do the math any way you like, but you are likely to find that the actual profit year on year would eclipse Apples best financial results by several times. Even if Apple were to sell OSX to 10% of the PC market, they would make a killing.

THEN - what happens to sales of their Pro Apps? Final Cut, Shake, Logic, Soundtrack Pro, etc etc. Those also get a huge boost.

Those who say Jobs will never allow this are blinded by cultism. Fact is, Apple has been laying the groundwork for this for some time now. Seems like OSX on intel has been in the works all along, even way back when Apples IBM love affair began over the PPC, with no roadmap issues in sight. So why did they bother? What was the point?

Jobs is a businessman. Sure, sometimes he makes decisions based on his own vision, and he rules the place with that vision. But make no mistake, there is no way he would be able to resist the force of the billions of dollars that are to be made here, and the opportunity for Apple to become the next Microsoft. Jobs, as a CEO, is not indestructible.

Look at Jobs track record over the last few years. Everything from the iPod to the Mac Mini have been designed to be very inclusive of PC users. One day, not very far away, we will see Jobs laying out a keynote presentation that outlines Apples strategy for computer domination. "Bringing the Mac experience to the rest of the world".

The strategy would likely include a premiere vendor like HP or Dell marketing hardware that is "Apple designed" (but will not be required to run OSX, it will keep Apples hardware design profile out there), a version of OSX that can run on any PC, and of course Apples own in house hardware designs. This would be brilliant. Apple puts their stamp of approval on the Mac hardware Dell sells, and even if Dell only sells one of the "Apple designed" boxes for every ten regular Dell PC's, Apple continues to make a nice profit on hardware. You know, there is really nothing to stop Apple from insisting that Dell or HP actually sell Apple created boxes either. I mean...why not? The distribution channel is immense.

At the same time, Jobs will announce alliances with software creators that have never been thought possible or likely on the Mac. The software vendors will salivate at the thought of offering cross-upgrades for a fee to existing owners of certain products, and the potential for a whole new market of OSX users (since the user base would increase dramatically).

Huge amounts of cash for apple, more software for OSX, more users of OSX - this all spins off to greater educational/office/enterprise acceptance.

Is there a negative? Well, sort of. Depends on how stubborn you are.

The days of the elite cult of Mac are numbered. Those who embrace the platform and its niche status will either surrender and convince themselves this is all for the common good, or they will convince themselves that they must be different, and they will adopt another OS out of spite.

Either way, the way things will go, the current OSX user base will be a blip on the OSX radar amongt the vast armies of OSX users that are to come.

[wdlove]

It won't happen because that would kill Microsoft. They need to exist so we can make fun of them.

I for one wouldn't miss Microsoft, we have better things on our plates.

Seriously though, what really makes Apple the company that we admire is quality. The integration of hardware and software.

[jayscheuerle]

I think Apple finally got a sense of the average consumer and how best to market and sell to them with the iPod. The lessons learned are changing the culture within Apple and this knowledge will find it's way to Macs ... thus, one of the reasons for the Intel switch.

Absolutely wrong. Apple could give a rat's arse about the average consumer. They want a fast, cool chip to further shrink the computing experience, whether it's mobile or desktop. They will continue to offer the smallest, most stunning products for a premium price. What chip is in these machines will be transparent to the consumer. Changing chips has just allowed Apple to continue doing what they've always done. Being forced to work with the hot G5 has stymied Apple's design efforts. Watch for more incredible designs for other PC makers to attempt to emulate in the near future!

[feakbeak]

This will never happen while Jobs is running things.

Steve knows how Proud & Honorable the "Mac Few" are and how irate we would be if he just gave his OS to anyone with any type of computer. Why would he gamble like that? He would destroy all credibility with us. There is just no guarantee that enough PC owners would jump on board to offset the huge chasm he's created between Apple and the Apple Community.Steve's job isn't to appease the "Mac Few", it is to make Apple's shareholders money. Key items to make them money is to expand the company into new products and markets.

[Gasu E.]

Also, to be fair, some of the current Dell machines wipe the floor (performance-wise) with current macs.

Dells are boring, but they aren't bad computers. And I've found their customer service to be very good. We got our comptuer back in days from a motherboard replacement, where it took apple 3 weeks to get my powerbook back.

MP


Dell customer service is very good. I bought a Dell once, and they were able to turn around a motherboard replacement in four days, door-to-door. On the other hand, I've owned six Macs, and i've never needed a motherboard replacement with those.

[paulypants]

When you are computing are you staring at the hardware or using the OS and applications?

Maybe you and I just compute differently, but your point is lost on me.

Are you telling me honestly that the OS and Hardware work independently of each other, and the integration of Hardware and Software don't make for a seamless experience? C'mon I know if you think about it you'll understand what I'm saying...

[CelticBhoy]

What drives Jobs ? The speech at Stanford gives us a clue. He eyeballed a life span of 3 - 6 months. Are you sure that he's looking for computing domination, or is he just trying to give the elect a wonderful computing experience ?

[paulypants]

Absolutely wrong. Apple could give a rat's arse about the average consumer. They want a fast, cool chip to further shrink the computing experience, whether it's mobile or desktop. They will continue to offer the smallest, most stunning products for a premium price. What chip is in these machines will be transparent to the consumer. Changing chips has just allowed Apple to continue doing what they've always done. Being forced to work with the hot G5 has stymied Apple's design efforts. Watch for more incredible designs for other PC makers to attempt to emulate in the near future!

Couldn't agree with you more.

[kjr39]

I cannot see how this would be a bad thing?

Consumers would now be able to focus on the OS and leave the hardware to those that are interested. The increased competition would be a benefit for us all....

[zelmo]

People are going to figure out ways to run OS X on standard x86 hardware. It's going to happen, and Apple will want to get in on it when it does. They know there will be money to be made there.

I can see a time, perhaps 4-6 years down the road, where Apple will make a deal with some PC maker (HP, Dell or someone else..Sony?) to sell Intel-based computers that can run OS X. Apple will naturally attempt to strike an arrangement that permits them to control the 3rd party spec's and pricing as much as possible to prevent their own hardware from being undercut too much, and perhaps most importantly, to control the quality of the end-user experience so that it feels like a Mac OS, not just another Windows box with a slightly different look to it. If Steve can't find a way to pass along that Mac feel, it flat out will not happen while he is in charge.

The old Mac clone experience has nothing to do with what is happening today. The clones only competed directly with Apple's existing customer base. All they did was undercut Apple pricing and steal sales from them. Bringing the right PC company on board would have to permit Apple to expand it's market base, otherwise Steve will never go for it.
Apple will still sell their own hardware. There are clearly enough of us who prefer Apple goods. There are, however, plenty of people who would love to run OS X (well, any viable Windows alternative, really) but can't see paying the premium for Apple-designed h/w. These are people who see Apple as a premium brand and can't get past the idea that they will spend more than they have to if they buy an Apple Mac.
There's your target audience. Apple isn't selling to them yet. Maybe the switch to Intel will drive prices down enough to tap that market, maybe not. I'm sure Steve has a plan to grab as much of that pie as possible. Plan A is going into effect over the next two years, with Intel processors. Plan B is waiting in the wings, just in case.

[feakbeak]

Are you telling me honestly that the OS and Hardware work independently of each other, and the integration of Hardware and Software don't make for a seamless experience? C'mon I know if you think about it you'll understand what I'm saying...I do understand your point, but I don't think running OS X on other hardware would be a bad experience. I would expect that OS X would always have fewer bugs/issues on Apple's hardware, but what's wrong with offering OS X on other x86 hardware. You might have some driver issues or snags but for average consumers I would think the benefit of not having to worry about malware/viruses would be worth the trade-off if you weren't willing to spend the premium price for Apple hardware. I like Windows and PCs, but I have always felt that Apple's software is better for the home/consumer computing experience. I think hardware plays a smaller role in the overall computing experience than software does.

[ailleur]

You people crack me up

"apple could expand"

"OH NOS!"

Is your pleasure of using a mac the pleasure of being elitist or the pleasure of actually USING a mac. How does more people using osx reduce the work you get done on YOUR computer?

[paulypants]

Steve's job isn't to appease the "Mac Few", it is to make Apple's shareholders money. Key items to make them money is to expand the company into new products and markets.

You aren't going to make shareholders money if you sabotage your money making business model. Apple makes the majority of their profits from the high margins they reap from computer hardware. iPods are nice, but margins are nowhere near what they are with CPUs. Apple's model is to offer their CPUs to the most people, with the best computing experience possible (amazing OS, integration, media) This is where they will expand their base. Not by licensing software, with no regards to profit at all, thus eating into their money-makers considerably. That's just bad business.

[paulypants]

I do understand your point, but I don't think running OS X on other hardware would be a bad experience. I would expect that OS X would always have fewer bugs/issues on Apple's hardware, but what's wrong with offering OS X on other x86 hardware. You might have some driver issues or snags but for average consumers I would think the benefit of not having to worry about malware/viruses would be worth the trade-off if you weren't willing to spend the premium price for Apple hardware. I like Windows and PCs, but I have always felt that Apple's software is better for the home/consumer computing experience. I think hardware plays a smaller role in the overall computing experience than software does.

True, I do believe it plays a smaller role, especially since it's pretty much invisible to the user. But I think from Apple's standpoint it will not be a good move financially (see my previous post). The end user may see some benefits, if the are saavy enough to deal with driver issues, but Apple is a business and they have a model that currently keeps them very profitable. To move off this model I think a lot of dynamics in the undustry would need to change first.

[paulypants]

You people crack me up

"apple could expand"

"OH NOS!"

Is your pleasure of using a mac the pleasure of being elitist or the pleasure of actually USING a mac. How does more people using osx reduce the work you get done on YOUR computer?

Take Business 101 and get back to us.
;)

[feakbeak]

You aren't going to make shareholders money if you sabotage your money making business model. Apple makes the majority of their profits from the high margins they reap from computer hardware. iPods are nice, but margins are nowhere near what they are with CPUs. Apple's model is to offer their CPUs to the most people, with the best computing experience possible (amazing OS, integration, media) This is where they will expand their base. Not by licensing software, with no regards to profit at all, thus eating into their money-makers considerably. That's just bad business.You are correct that Mac hardware is Apple's cash cow right now, but it doesn't necessarily need to stay that way. Software can produce huge profit margins. Apple sells hardware for premium prices, but sells software for relatively inexpensive prices. As a theoretical example imagine if Apple sold iLife for Windows for $99. I think they would make a killing. This might adversely affect their OS X/Mac platform, but my point is that there are other options in Apple's future, even more now that they've moved to x86 hardware. Steve and Apple's primary goal is not to keep the Mac zealots happy, it is make money and expand the company. Perhaps sticking with a closed-platform is the best plan for Apple, but if there is a better option, Apple isn't going to pass it up out of fear of offending their hardcore fans. This move to Intel is a perfect example of that fact.

[Josh]

Apple is an innovation company. Period. Whether that innovation takes form in hardware, software or business practice is not really the point.

This (Apple licensing OSX on PC's) absolutely IS going to happen. Do the math. How much real profit does Apple make from selling something like a G5 iMac? I would guess around $400. Now, how many computer users of the potential user basedo they sell a $400 profit margin machine to? Lets say 5%. (It is actually much less than that, since the Mac Mini wrecks the average profit, but I will err on the side of inflating the profit to make the point)
----- SNIP ------

*Applause*

It's good to see someone who sees what's going on here and knows what they're talking about.

Currently, Apple is not making these decisions at whim. Moving to Intel was not a sudden, spur-of-the-moment thing like many think. Nor is/was the idea of OS X on x86 a sort of 'back up plan.'

Apple (read: Jobs) has got this whole thing figured out, and has had a plan since day one. All we are doing now is watching it unfold.

The things that are happening - and those that are rumored to happen - are all part of a plan that has long existed, and it's only a matter of time before the curtain unfolds and it is all laid plain before us.

Some may think what I am about to say may seem 'far-fetched' or simply not true at all, but I assure you, before long you will hear these two words again:

Microsoft who?

[bredlo]

Intel inside Apple... Michael Dell willing to install OS X on his machines...

I think if those four horseman show up we're all set for the Apocalypse! :)

[FoxyKaye]

Apple is an innovation company. Period... <snip, for brevity>
Yep - I think you've got the right of it. Just posted a similar rant a couple pages back.

What I would like to see is how much Apple's actual profit margins are on the hardware it currently sells. A lot of folks on MR have taken guesses at this, but does anyone have the actual numbers?

[Stella]

Agreed - to a certain point
The darwin core maybe good in terms of security, however, how good is the UI layer on top - i bet there are plenty of hacks just waiting to exploit the gui - which can be used to by a virus to create damage - i.e., buffer overruns etc.

Also, a virus could still do plenty of damage, your home directory and /Applications - when you copy apps etc to this directory osx doesn't ask for your password - and thus use sudo. apps remain the ownership of the user who copied it there. Thus, a virus can delete files using your user account when you log on.

( yes, I do run fix permissions )



The design of the OS really prevents viruses from becoming a problem on the mac. You have to have a system password to make any system changes.

I'm sure that hackers will find there way through security holes to find thier way inside your machine but I doubt viruses will ever become much of an issue on it.

[poundsmack]

People are going to figure out ways to run OS X on standard x86 hardware. It's going to happen, and Apple will want to get in on it when it does. They know there will be money to be made there.

this is true.take Wine for example on linux for windows and MOL of linux on linux for OSX peoploe will find a way and they will defenenelty do it in this case, een if it is not a true install. VMware is another perfect example.

[feakbeak]

Microsoft who?I agree with most of what you said, but you are correct, I do think this particular statement is far-fetched. Here's my thoughts on why, linky (http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?p=1533653#post1533653).

[fluidinclusion]

I think Dell and any other PC company would be damn happy to have Mac OS X seeing that their ass could possibly be handed to them by Apple. The one computer company that can run any OS. That's a seller my friend. Not to mention the wealth of hardware upgrades it can take once they move to x86.

Sure, the Dells, Gateways, HP's etc. of the world would scream monopoly, but by then Apple would have made enormous amounts of cash and be willing to license their OS. I don't think Apple WANTS to keep OS X to itself. It just knows it's too small to stand up to MS right now. But if the above happened.... ;)

Here's the way I see it played out...

Step 1. Keep OS X on Apple boxes only
Step 2. License OS X to PC companies (Dell, Gateway, HP,..etc)
Step 3. OS X on store shelves for the enthusiast that likes to build their
systems.

Executed carefully, Apple would overtake MS as the dominate OS

IBM and MS crushed Apple one time to the point of ousting Steve Jobs ..he WILL NOT make that mistake again. You can say Apple is a "hardware" company now, but the writing is on the wall. Apple has an extremely powerful library of software now and it's growing.


That's the best post I've read in a long while.

[ValiumLolliPoP]

If Apple wanted to license OS X on Dell or any other Intel run computer company, they would have done so already. Don't you all remember how Jobs said OS X has been compatible with Intel chips for 5 years now?

If they did license it, history would only repeat itself! Apple makes hardware and if they were to license the OS to Dell who can make computers cheap, Apple would lose big. They did once before and it would happen again. Only if Apple stopped making hardware would they succeed. And since they just switched to Intel chips, that is not ever likely to happen.

[zelmo]

You are correct that Mac hardware is Apple's cash cow right now, but it doesn't necessarily need to stay that way. Software can produce huge profit margins. Apple sells hardware for premium prices, but sells software for relatively inexpensive prices. As a theoretical example imagine if Apple sold iLife for Windows for $99. I think they would make a killing. This might adversely affect their OS X/Mac platform, but my point is that there are other options in Apple's future, even more now that they've moved to x86 hardware. Steve and Apple's primary goal is not to keep the Mac zealots happy, it is make money and expand the company. Perhaps sticking with a closed-platform is the best plan for Apple, but if there is a better option, Apple isn't going to pass it up out of fear of offending their hardcore fans. This move to Intel is a perfect example of that fact.

Agree 100%. My mindset regarding Apple keeping it's OS and software "jewels" all to itself has turned 180° (well, maybe 178.5°) in the past couple of weeks. Setting aside (more like getting past) the emotional trauma created by the very idea of Macs running on an Intel chip, the roadmap being laid out before us makes all the sense in the world.
If Apple turrns off ALL of it's current loyal fanbase by opening up the OS, the potential gain still far, far outweighs that loss.

Go, Apple! Well, as long as I can still elect to purchase gorgeous Apple hardware to run my OS and apps on, anyway. :rolleyes:

[fluidinclusion]

Yeah, ok, words marked. Dell still does not use quality parts. I've seen more Dells crap out than other brands.

In the 2 departments I was in, EVERY SINGLE DELL in our college departments (~10) that were purchased between 1998 and 2001 had hardware failures. Hard drives that actually didn't even have brand labels on them, video card failures, etc.

As far as high end home machines, I haven't seen a single failure. I just think they put cheap crap in the education machines. In fact, the CPU box and the case sticker of my wife's Dell said Pentium III, but in fact the computer had a Celeron processor. I believe that is illegal.

[VanMac]

*Applause*

It's good to see someone who sees what's going on here and knows what they're talking about.

Currently, Apple is not making these decisions at whim. Moving to Intel was not a sudden, spur-of-the-moment thing like many think. Nor is/was the idea of OS X on x86 a sort of 'back up plan.'

Apple (read: Jobs) has got this whole thing figured out, and has had a plan since day one. All we are doing now is watching it unfold.

The things that are happening - and those that are rumored to happen - are all part of a plan that has long existed, and it's only a matter of time before the curtain unfolds and it is all laid plain before us.
Microsoft who?
Roger that.

I've bought more stock in apple based on whats going on(and I dont even own a mac). Stock may take a short term hit on this, but definately going to pay off in a few years :)

Unfortunately, I may have delayed my PB purchase a little bit....but I'm waiting for a little upgrade anyway ;)

[sinisterdesign]

Intel inside Apple... Michael Dell willing to install OS X on his machines...

I think if those four horseman show up we're all set for the Apocalypse! :)

...i can hear the hoofs...

i'm no biz major & i don't pretend to be, but i just don't think it makes sense to flush the hardware business down the toilet in favor for building out the software side, which is what would happen if Jobs licensed OSX. am i wrong? i just don't see how the hardware side could compete if Dell et all started selling OSX on their cheap as dirt PCs.

i know M$ has made a killing (understatement) being a software company, but they didn't have a hardware side to begin with. plus, as great as OSX is, the cool, sleak, gorgeous hardware is half the panache of being a Mac user.

i'm very curious to see where steve is taking us in the next few years. i'll be along for the ride, but i'm just now coming to terms w/ the whole Intel thing...

[SiliconAddict]

At the end of the day after whatever Apple says about how they would never do such a thing it all comes down to money. If Apple feels they can or should transition over to a pure software vendor and can still make the same money they do now they may consider it. If they think they can’t they won’t do it. But there are other interesting possibilities. What if you had a hybrid of the two options? Let someone like HP or Dell make their hardware and work CLOSELY with them to tailor the OS and build the hardware to Apple’s standards but still sell the OS to everyone else. Not saying its going to happen but there are other possibilities other then a black and white “total solution provider” or “software provider” Apple could straddle the two in some form or another.

[Prom1]

Or anyone else for that matter?

THeir going to goto Intel chips next year in a transitory state. Their machines can be slightly cheaper than existing machines in the same lineup. Apple doesnt want to make the cheapest machines possible. They want to make the best machines for our customers going forward. To buy the best its gonna cost you a slight premium over the others. For the cost conscious there's the Mac Mini & the eMac. Both of which are switching Dell Windows users over to the Mac. There is no need now of going to Dell. If it was ever going to happen it might've happened back in 1992 when Jobs wasn't around or better chance when he returned. Apple was really hurting then. Jobs didnt sell the entire company to Bill Gates then he isnt gonna do it for Michael Dell. :p

[JesterJJZ]

iDell?

[Disturbed]

Apple is a "hardware" company. This is the type of thinking that could limit Apple's mass acceptance. Apple is the only company which has an OS and manufactures its own OS. This is a unique position. In order to go to the next level, a change must occur. Apple has learned from its mistakes in the past.

1. Build Strategic Alliances- Don't try to resist every non-Apple company. The industry as a whole is huge compared to Apple. They were forced to do it with Microsoft years back. The difference now is that these alliances are well thought out. It is smarter to work with the competition where you can find common ground. IBM - they used to be the "enemy." HP - They were part of the vast PC conspiracy. Intel - They were part of the evil empire too. As you can see, Apple is more interested in going to the next level. This is not a bad thing. It will lead to many more opportunities for Mac users.

2. Timing- It's all about timing. The timing for the Newton was wrong. The timing for clones was wrong. The world will never mass-accept Apple built computers if they have no choice. While I believe that I would always buy a Mac, others may never buy a Mac if there is no choice. I was surprised to hear Steve Jobs say that the soul of a Mac is the software. To me, this indicates a change in direction. If a company is stubborn and unwilling to change based on the market and consumer demand, it will be dead in the water. This is the best timing for Apple to change its strategy to increase its marketshare. Capitalize on the success of the iPod. I think the iPod was always part of the strategy. We all complained that there was no emphasis on the "Mac" itself - but it's all about timing. It's not good enough to just advertise whenever. Apple needed to capivate its audience first. And it did. The world is now watching. Time to put it in HIGH gear.

3. Cloning- I don't think that just because it failed at first will mean that it will fail again. If OS X begins to get a large acceptance on Intel hardware, it MAY make sense to allow cloning to continue growth. Let's face it folks. We don't want the world to be 100% apple hardware and software. There will be NO INNOVATION if this is the case. What makes Apple great is that they MUST strive to be innovative to exist. Apple certainly is the creme of the crop. There "could" be a point to where cloning may make sense. It is not now, but possibly in the future. This would be where software sales are significantly greater than hardware sales. How could you determine this if only Apple makes Apples?? Simple. The next logical transformation, which is...

4. Co-Branding- This is where Apple needs to go next. Just like they did with the iPod. Find a manufacturer who has a very large distribution system, and one who can reach deep into corporations. Someplace Apple cannot currently compete with easily. Like it or not, Apple has no credibility with many corporations. They may have it in Hollywood and Madison Ave, but not in the regular corporate world. Apple would still make the computer and would slap a PC logo on it (just like the HP iPod by Apple). The PC manufacturer would distribute, market, and service it. There will come a point where Co-branded Macs outsell Macs. This would be the time to consider a cloning program. One with very well designed specifications.
Another idea, perhaps an interim solution, could be to have some kind of PCI card that Apple could make and sell for users to allow their existing PCs run OS X. This way, they still have control over their OSes.

5. Determine the true enemy- Is Dell or HP or Intel the true enemy?? Or is it Microsoft?? I say it's Microsoft. They need to be put in their place, not eliminated. 95% marketshare is not good for any company. Not good for innovation or ideas. I don't think that MS would ever discontinue Office for the Mac anyway. Do you realize that MS has made Excel for the Mac longer than it has for Windows?? It's true. Research it. Apple itself cannot kill the beast without the help of others. Companies such as Intel have become frusterated with MS. And I think for the first time, they see an alternative. Up until now, Windows was it. No choice. MS and its predatory practices. Some tried with Linux, but Linux will never (let me say it again... NEVER) be mainstream for home and general business users. (That's another debate). SO, these PC companies must do what MS wants, period. And I think they are looking for some new bargaining power. And until recently, there wasn't even a chance. All things aside, it doesn't really matter to Dell or HP or any other PC manufacturer what OS is on their computer. And, for the record, I DO NOT LIKE DELLS AT ALL.

[paulypants]

You are correct that Mac hardware is Apple's cash cow right now, but it doesn't necessarily need to stay that way. Software can produce huge profit margins. Apple sells hardware for premium prices, but sells software for relatively inexpensive prices. As a theoretical example imagine if Apple sold iLife for Windows for $99. I think they would make a killing. This might adversely affect their OS X/Mac platform, but my point is that there are other options in Apple's future, even more now that they've moved to x86 hardware. Steve and Apple's primary goal is not to keep the Mac zealots happy, it is make money and expand the company. Perhaps sticking with a closed-platform is the best plan for Apple, but if there is a better option, Apple isn't going to pass it up out of fear of offending their hardcore fans. This move to Intel is a perfect example of that fact.

Too true. Like I said, if the dynamics change and Apple sees the opportunity to expand and remain as profitable or more, they wouldn't hesitate for a second. But, I believe anything Apple does would have some sort of "Apple Twist" to it, just to keep them different and provide fuel for marketing purposes.

[iDrinkKoolAid]

I doubt that Apple will do that. They already tried that, and it didn't work out the way the liked (less hardware sale and hardly any increase in the market share of Mac-OS) Why would it work out differently this time?

Back then Apple was not hot and dying a slow death (in the public eye at least). Apple was also arrogant and expensive. Power Computing showed them a thing or two. Faster and better, although more ugly.

[paulypants]

How much real profit does Apple make from selling something like a G5 iMac? I would guess around $400.


Guess again. Their margins are much higher than that.

[bbyrdhouse]

If Apple liscenses OS X to anybody I hope that it would be Sony.
They make good looking machines and laptops that typically are more expensive than other computer makers anyway.

[Josh]

For those who say Apple is a hardware company, I disagree.

True - the majority of their $$ is generated through hardware sales. But that's just pure 'the way it is' due to factors such as:

1. The Hardware costs more. Why? Because the technology behind, and the manufacturing process that creates, the hardware costs much more than it does to pay developers to make software.

2. You need the hardware to run the software.

It all boils down to the simple fact that the only reason people buy Apple hardware is for the software.

Do you honestly think a dual 2ghz PowerMac running Windows would be so glorious? No. Sure wouldnt. It's the software that makes Apple so special (why I am saying this again, I don't know - Steve Jobs already said so himself).

If Apple was a hardware company, they would simply make hardware that can run Windows (thats where the users are) because that would make them the most money. But they don't do that at all. What more evidence does one need - in addition to Steve's statement as well?

If Apple liscenses OS X to anybody I hope that it would be Sony.
They make good looking machines and laptops that typically are more expensive than other computer makers anyway.

And why is 'expensive' a good thing? It's not. I don't know why people take pride in the fact that Apple is expensive. That is a FLAW - not a positive feature.

I'm hoping you mean't "inexpensive."

Mac users all over need to ditch the whole Elitist 'Me and my machine are better than you because it costs more' attitude. Apple is ditching that philosophy, it's time the users catch on.

It's 2005. There is no need for computer systems to cost $3k. That's not what people are going to buy. Apple wants to survive and excel, which is exactly why they are moving forward, and though it may not seem apparent now, their prices WILL drop in the times to come.

[sinisterdesign]

let's not forget that Apple is and should always remain a 'cool' computer company. it's cool to own a Mac. is there one person reading this site that doesn't look at their mod iMac, stark G5 or sleek Powerbook and get a feeling of superiority when you see that snoozer of a Thinkpad or some chinsy plasticy Dell w/ a floppy drive crammed in the front of a boring box??

but go too far & you're no longer cool. cool/uncool is a fine line. there are tons of examples of this, i'm sure, but Skechers comes to mind. i remember when i bought my first pair in San Fran back when i was working for Apple. they were big & chunky and everyone thought they were so cool & interesting. 6 or 7 years later, you can go to Sears or someplace & pick up a pair. sure, now they have a much larger distribution channel, but they've lost the cool appeal. i wouldn't buy a pair now for that exact reason (call me a fashion snob, w/e). ;)

i see the same thing happen to restaurants & clubs. when they're small & exclusive, they're cool and the hip crowd flocks to them. once they've gone mainstream, the cool clique moves elsewhere. does this same phenomenon happen w/ computers?? i don't know, but i have a feeling the answer is "yes". so i don't WANT a 40% marketshare for Apple. i don't WANT to see the Dell kid hocking OSX. Dell=boring & mainstream. steve has to know this.

anyone else have a take on this?

[dstorey]

…Enter stage left… SONY.

Didn't Steve Jobs say, Apple and SONY worked together in some areas, and maybe who knows, in computers and music someday. i think this day has just drawn nearer.

SONY has been courting OS X for a while now. I think they've been looking for a way to leave Windows behind. Microsoft are a major rival to SONY, not only with PS vs. Xbox, but also with themselves being number one in consumer electronics and MS number one in the computer industry. The difference between them two areas are blurring fast. They need something to compete with MS n this area and Apple are looking to win the digital living room/home so they are a natural fit. SONY are attractive to Apple because they are also a premium brand that will not dilute the Mac image, and are an innovative company who could offer expertise and tech to Apple, as well as media content. I don't think it's too far fetched to expect Vaio's to be the first none apple computers to offer OS X as the standard primary OS. Their walkmen and connect service becoming iPod and iTMS compatible further down the line wouldn't surprise me either. Having the two most stylish brands of computer maker producing Macs would corner the premium market (even though vaio's materials kinda look cheapy in person).

Of course the big problem for Apple would be that SONY are in a similar market to them (except SONY bring their fan boys to the platform), and for SONY they could be jumping from the frying pan into the fire, going from MS to Apple, unless they gain fairplay compatibility.

I don't really see Dell as a good potential market. I think they'll lower the brand image, while not offering too much to apple. I see them target partners that have a good image and can offer the Mac brand something in return. Good partners could be HP, as an existing partner and it's increasing focus on digital lifestyle, IBM for it's innovation and business market, and possibly Sun for the server market (but they already have Solaris so unlikely), and SGI. SGI running OS X would be a natural progression from IRIX, they have expertise in the Unix space, and they'd bring a lot of professional design customers and apps into the fold. IBM i'd like to see but they've sold off their pc division (and the IBM brand name will be gone on Lenove computers by the time MacTel's come out) and they might not be so happy with Apple after the very public dumping of them. Selling OS X would be another good option for their servers (both power and xeon) and possibly a way to do something with all that PPC 9** research and development. As apps will be Universal Binary then selling OS X still on PPC could still be viable solution (especially in the server space where it is performance king), and could be good news for current ppc mac users that want to keep using ppc, and ensure that developers still produce UB's allowing our present Mac's to stay useful longer. It seems producing UB's well into the future would be a no brainer, but it's not as easy as it is made out. Not all apps will work just by clicking the tick boxes, and will need separate code base for both platforms (such as performance sensitive apps and ones that use Altivec/SSE2 or whatever it's called)

With carefully chosen partners, where Apple are still in control of what components will be supported, either by them specifying to partners or via a comity they head (much like how sun control Java), they could really push forward the future of OS X, while keeping the quality and profitability. Much like how Nokia are now helping with the recently open sourced WebKit, to improve it for mobile applications and increase it's portability, having the likes of IBM, Sun, SGI and HP helping on the OpenDarwin project could really help it's performance and functionality. I don't think Dell could help in any of these areas, except being able to produce many cheap boxes at cheap prices, undercutting Apple and all other partners. It's not like Dell would pass on their expertise of how to make boxes as cheaply as possible to apple anyway. The only way I can see Apple wanting Dell to sell mactels if it is their premium range, but SONY are bigger in that market.

[mwpeters8182]

It's a computer. I use it do work and listen to music, not to "be cool". I find that OS X does a better job of this than Windows, so I use a Mac. I do like the fact that the mac community is helpful in troubleshooting problems, but if windows were to advance to the point where it was better to use than a Mac system, I'd be using that. However, I don't see this happening soon.

mp

[feakbeak]

let's not forget that Apple is and should always remain a 'cool' computer company. it's cool to own a Mac. is there one person reading this site that doesn't look at their mod iMac, stark G5 or sleek Powerbook and get a feeling of superiority when you see that snoozer of a Thinkpad or some chinsy plasticy Dell w/ a floppy drive crammed in the front of a boring box??

but go too far & you're no longer cool. cool/uncool is a fine line. there are tons of examples of this, i'm sure, but Skechers comes to mind. i remember when i bought my first pair in San Fran back when i was working for Apple. they were big & chunky and everyone thought they were so cool & interesting. 6 or 7 years later, you can go to Sears or someplace & pick up a pair. sure, now they have a much larger distribution channel, but they've lost the cool appeal. i wouldn't buy a pair now for that exact reason (call me a fashion snob, w/e). ;)

i see the same thing happen to restaurants & clubs. when they're small & exclusive, they're cool and the hip crowd flocks to them. once they've gone mainstream, the cool clique moves elsewhere. does this same phenomenon happen w/ computers?? i don't know, but i have a feeling the answer is "yes". so i don't WANT a 40% marketshare for Apple. i don't WANT to see the Dell kid hocking OSX. Dell=boring & mainstream. steve has to know this.

anyone else have a take on this?You have a good point, but cool, trendy, counter-culture items never last. Whether they are computers, clothing, music, tv show, whatever... they either remain obscure and eventually die out and go away or they make it big and become mainstream and loose the cool factor.

I was using Google a long time before it become popular. Everyone was using Yahoo, Excite, etc and Google just blew them all away. It felt cool to use Google, you'd show your friends and they'd be amazed. "It's so clean looking and easy to use and provides better results.", they'd say. You know what? it doesn't feel as cool to use Google now days because everyone does - Google is practically a verb now. It's still a damn good search engine though.

If Apple eventually licenses OS X and gains market share Macs might not be as cool. Still, they'll continue to make great hardware designs and OS X will remain a great OS. Besides, although I think this is a definite possibility for Apple's future, I couldn't see it happening for a few years.

[min_t]

Egad! I hope this doesn't happen in my lifetime. I'm enjoying the ride on Apple's innovation rollercoaster. We need innovative companies to help drag the fat, bloatted ones off their a**** and make products that are user-centric.

Rather have a mac Mini on my desk than a 30 lb black bland box.

[jayscheuerle]

I think what many people are failing to realize is that switching to an Intel chip is a completely different issue than making OSX available to generic PCs. The only relevancy is possibility.

Hope and dream if you want to, but it's pretty much business as usual at Apple, regardless of the processor inside. Why should they change? They're doing extremely well and have a future that doesn't rely completely on units sold.

These types of dreams will neither die nor happen...

[vtprinz]

I honestly do think there will be a day when Apple will take over the computer industry, and Mac OS will be on the majority of user-computers, in the work-places etc. Mac OS is the future of computers. All in good time :D


Actually, that could spell the downfall of the Mac OS. When the OS starts getting put on any run-of-the-mill machine, you start having hardware compatibility issues. Apple has to start loading the OS with drivers, which bog it down and are a constant site of errors. On top of that, if Mac rises to the popularity and spread of windows, you could be saying hello to viruses and malware.

If Mac OS became the majority, I think we'd start seeing people hop over to Linux until the same thing happened with that.

[Cooknn]

For the three month period that ended April 29, 2005 Dell sold almost $10 Billion in Desktop PC's, Mobility and Servers. I wonder how many of those would have OS X if it was an option - and how much money that would mean for Apple...

[rOckAPE]

By the end of 2007, Apple will have a complete line of computers that can run Mac OS X, Windows, and Linux at full speed...no emulation....all native. Not ONE other computer company can say that.

Like I said before, this will be in stages. And it will definitely pay off for our beloved company.

I firmly believe this is their plan. I guess it would sound sad for some long time devotees of Apple. But we shouldn't keep this OS to ourselves...the world needs it :p

[Music_Producer]

I am surprised by the number of mad and idiotic people here with comments like :

. "Throw up" at the idea of OS x on a dell
. " Steve has betrayed us"
. " Never happen - never! I will never buy a mac again"

The reason I "Switched" back in 2001 was because of the software (which was OS 9 back then) and not the hardware (of course, that did count..but not enough to justify spending $3000 on a powerbook) Since I am into music production, I needed software that would be rock solid and stable..and OS 9 did the job. OS X of course, is much better.

My brother-in-law has a Dell..with Win XP. His interest in the Macintosh platform is pretty strong, however he simply will not spend $2500+ on a powerbook when all he does is email and chat! Isn't the mac experience all about software? The look counts, I know.. but how do you expect people to "switch" when you don't want to offer them Mac OS X on the computer of THEIR choice?

Finally, Apple is a company and yes, they do need to make a profit. When they released the ipod and it was an instant success, its profitability was multiplied when they released itunes for windows.. right? Their financial statements are amazing, their cash flow has never been better..so they have learnt their lesson. If they keep catering to the 'elite mac fan zealots' they will ALWAYS occupy 3% of the computer market share. Its time for them to 'think different'.

I am all for OS X on PCs and Macs..those who have the money to buy a sleek powerbook ..will buy it, those who don't..will buy a Dell with OS X on it..the more the OS X users, the better. In fact, like the CEO of Adobe said to Steve at the keynote "What took you so long?"

[wnurse]

This will never happen under Jobs. Whoever becomes CEO after him, well, that's another story.

I have a philossophy that says never bet your life on what someone else will do. Steve Jobs is running apple the best way he sees fit, regardless of what the mac faithfull thinks. Why, only a couple of weeks ago, there were people claiming they'd rather die than see intel inside.. heck, some people even thought that news.com were idiots for even saying apple would move to intel cause if they went X86, it would be AMD. I realize this is a rumor board and part of the fun is predicting what apple would do next but did you see the guy on the board that said he'd shoot himself if apple licensed OSX to dell?. If anyone knows that guy, please get him help. Steve Jobs could give a rats ass how much you hate dell. If Apple never license their operating system, it wouldn't be becuase they thought Dells were inferior. It would be because they decided it was not a business decision for them to make. It amuses me how people think Jobs would only license (if ever) the operating system to some company who made beautifull cases. News flash folks, jobs is running a company. Just like every CEO, he likes bigger jets, more money, etc. If it made sense, he'd license to Dell and he wouldn't care a bit what you all think. He probably doesn't even know or care to ask.

[Music_Producer]

Egad! I hope this doesn't happen in my lifetime. I'm enjoying the ride on Apple's innovation rollercoaster. We need innovative companies to help drag the fat, bloatted ones off their a**** and make products that are user-centric.

Rather have a mac Mini on my desk than a 30 lb black bland box.


And who is telling you to buy a 30 lb black bland box?? You would buy a mac mini with OS X.. someone else would buy a 30 lb black bland box with OS X.. geez!

[Josh]

If Mac OS became the majority, I think we'd start seeing people hop over to Linux until the same thing happened with that.

Apple has big names behind them, and an industry/user-base much different than that of linux.

You're not going to see Adobe adopting linux and making CS3 for it, or any other thing like that.

What Mac OS is for, and who its intended users are, is not going to change no matter what hardware is running it.

[jayscheuerle]

For the three month period that ended April 29, 2005 Dell sold almost $10 Billion in Desktop PC's, Mobility and Servers. I wonder how many of those would have OS X if it was an option - and how much money that would mean for Apple...

About none. The majority of PC sales (over 60%) are to corporations, not homes.

[wnurse]

Guess again. Their margins are much higher than that.

Not involved in original discussion but hmm, how would you know this?.
a profit margin greater than $400 on a machine?. no wonder apple market share is small!!!.. wow, how much higher, $600, $800, $1000?. Personally, i can't wait for macOSX for intel. I want to be first to crack it and be able to load on any machine. I don't care how nicely designed apple machines is but a profit margin of over $400 (according to you) is obscene. Why should i pay apple substantially more than $400 profit margin (again, according to you) for a commodity product like a Personal Computer?. Actually, why would i continue to do that?.

[Cooknn]

About none. The majority of PC sales (over 60%) are to corporations, not homes.I think you underestimate the potential for OS X in the corporate world :cool:

[MontyZ]

Hey, if it means the prices come down out of the stratosphere for Apple computers, I'm all for it. It's just way too expensive. I just hope they don't look like Dell's hideous computers. And no way I'd want to have to put up with Dell's horrible support which is outsourced to India. I just had a nightmare after ordering a camera from them. They are totally incompetent.

[feakbeak]

I think you underestimate the potential for OS X in the corporate world :cool:There is certainly potential, but Apple is a LONG way from being able to execute in the business world. The way software is managed in the home or even a small office of ~20 computers is very different than how software is managed in the corporate world. Apple doesn't have any of the IT infrastructure technologies necessary to support medium to large-sized businesses. These technologies would take years to develop if Apple ever does decide to go that route. I don't see it happening - it doesn't fit at all with how Apple have positioned themsleves over the years and currently.

[paulypants]

My brother-in-law has a Dell..with Win XP. His interest in the Macintosh platform is pretty strong, however he simply will not spend $2500+ on a powerbook when all he does is email and chat! Isn't the mac experience all about software?

I'm sorry, but if that's all he's interested in doing, WHY THE F is he looking at a powerbook for 2500$??!! Get a mac mini for 499$ or an iBook for under a grand, some of these "overpriced problems" can be simply solved with a little knowledge and common sense.

[dejo]

My brother-in-law has a Dell..with Win XP. His interest in the Macintosh platform is pretty strong, however he simply will not spend $2500+ on a powerbook when all he does is email and chat!

No one says he has to buy a $2500+ PowerBook if he is just emailing and chatting. Apple offers plenty of other cheaper options for those duties.

Isn't the mac experience all about software?

For many the Mac experience is about the combination of hardware and software and how they are designed, built and integrated to provide the whole experience. Similar to the iPod/iTunes experience.

...but how do you expect people to "switch" when you don't want to offer them Mac OS X on the computer of THEIR choice?

Many hardware manufacturers don't allow the consumer to choose the OS either. Try buying a $300 Dell with Linux on it.

[jayscheuerle]

I think you underestimate the potential for OS X in the corporate world :cool:

No, not at all. I've been an exclusive Apple user for 23 years and know exactly how good they are. I also know that businesses aren't likely to switch all their software over simply for the sake of a new OS.

[fluidinclusion]

let's not forget that Apple is and should always remain a 'cool' computer company. it's cool to own a Mac. is there one person reading this site that doesn't look at their mod iMac, stark G5 or sleek Powerbook and get a feeling of superiority when you see that snoozer of a Thinkpad or some chinsy plasticy Dell w/ a floppy drive crammed in the front of a boring box??

but go too far & you're no longer cool. cool/uncool is a fine line. there are tons of examples of this, i'm sure, but Skechers comes to mind. i remember when i bought my first pair in San Fran back when i was working for Apple. they were big & chunky and everyone thought they were so cool & interesting. 6 or 7 years later, you can go to Sears or someplace & pick up a pair. sure, now they have a much larger distribution channel, but they've lost the cool appeal. i wouldn't buy a pair now for that exact reason (call me a fashion snob, w/e). ;)

i see the same thing happen to restaurants & clubs. when they're small & exclusive, they're cool and the hip crowd flocks to them. once they've gone mainstream, the cool clique moves elsewhere. does this same phenomenon happen w/ computers?? i don't know, but i have a feeling the answer is "yes". so i don't WANT a 40% marketshare for Apple. i don't WANT to see the Dell kid hocking OSX. Dell=boring & mainstream. steve has to know this.

anyone else have a take on this?

Hey, no dissin Lenovo

[paulypants]

Not involved in original discussion but hmm, how would you know this?.
a profit margin greater than $400 on a machine?. no wonder apple market share is small!!!.. wow, how much higher, $600, $800, $1000?. Personally, i can't wait for macOSX for intel. I want to be first to crack it and be able to load on any machine. I don't care how nicely designed apple machines is but a profit margin of over $400 (according to you) is obscene. Why should i pay apple substantially more than $400 profit margin (again, according to you) for a commodity product like a Personal Computer?. Actually, why would i continue to do that?.

Profit margins on lower end machines is roughly 19 percent, while margins on higher priced macs is 25 percent or higher.

You wanna be the first to crack it? Good luck, my money's on a big "NO" for you succeeding in that. :p

[jrath1]

Why is this a bad thing? I've read numerous posts about apple hardware being superior. In what way? Apple doesn't make one thing in there computer. Get this, all the components are made by other companies. Apple hardware is a rip off. Look how much they charge for freaking ram. Are you kidding

Some of you need to get your head out of your ass. Apple is charging you more for video cards, ram, and hard drives that they don't make. Dells can have the same if not better hardware for cheaper.

OS X on a dell is the right way to go. You should have a choice of what hardware you want to run with what operating system you want

[jayscheuerle]

Why is this a bad thing? I've read numerous posts about apple hardware being superior. In what way?

In design.

You either appreciate it and don't mind paying a premium for it or you don't. This is something that is not appreciated as much here in the states as in Europe or Japan, where things of beauty are easier to come by.



Learn more. (http://www.paulgraham.com/usa.html)

[paulypants]

Why is this a bad thing? I've read numerous posts about apple hardware being superior. In what way? Apple doesn't make one thing in there computer. Get this, all the components are made by other companies. Apple hardware is a rip off. Look how much they charge for freaking ram. Are you kidding

Some of you need to get your head out of your ass. Apple is charging you more for video cards, ram, and hard drives that they don't make. Dells can have the same if not better hardware for cheaper.

OS X on a dell is the right way to go. You should have a choice of what hardware you want to run with what operating system you want

Do some more research on what Apple does and does not design and repost, because you don't seem to have any real knowledge of Apple hardware. The major point is Hardware and Software integration, but that point is lost on people that have never experienced that first hand.

Choice?! Try and order a Dell with Linux from Dell. You can't. Where's the choice there? Just because YOU want something, doesn't mean it's the right thing to do. If a company doing something to make you happy is equal to shooting themselves in the foot -- they aren't going to do it, and you wouldn't either. Get off it.

[Josh]

No, not at all. I've been an exclusive Apple user for 23 years and know exactly how good they are. I also know that businesses aren't likely to switch all their software over simply for the sake of a new OS.

Corporations have cycles in which they upgrade new products. If, during one of these cycles, they saw the cost benefit Mac OS X would provide, they'd consider it.

The big problem is training people who have never used OS X before. Since most of the stuff they will be using is MS office, it wouldn't be too bad, but it would be the biggest issue.

Rationally, the money saved on antivirus alone could cover that. We (state of michigan gov't) spend a ton of money on antivirus , antispyware, and security. Let alone the man-hours needed to fix something once its been messed up over virusses.

Another factor is MS Access. Databases powered by access are HUGE in the corporate world. Apple would need a fluid alternative that could not only replace, but also work alongside, Access.

But as I said in one thread: Apple knows what they are doing. And the whole program they have offering ibooks to schools so kids have them is helpful, but its also training in the making. These 6th graders are learning OS X and by the time they get into the workforce, they will be quite familiar with Apple and OS X, and the shift to OS X in the workplace will be much easer since no training will be required for them.

Apple has this on their minds, and they know to get into the workplace, they have to get into the market at the most basic level as possible.

[jrath1]

In design.

You either appreciate it and don't mind paying a premium for it or you don't. This is something that is not appreciated as much here in the states as in Europe or Japan, where things of beauty are easier to come by.



Learn more. (http://www.paulgraham.com/usa.html)


in what design? The fact that i have to use the keyboard to eject a disk? The one-button mouse?
The fact that i cannot install another cd drive?
It's a silver metal box. Nothing more.

Imac nice computer except if the monitor goes. What am i paying for again?

[shamino]

Let's not forget that the new Apple hardware will run windows.
I find it incredibly amusing that people keep on saying this as if it was true.

Apple did not say that their systems will run Windows. They said that they won't take actions to prevent someone else from making Windows run on Mac hardware. That is something very different.

If you buy a Mac and expect to just boot your WinXP CD in it, you are going to be very disappointed.

[paulypants]

in what design? The fact that i have to use the keyboard to eject a disk? The one-button mouse?
The fact that i cannot install another cd drive?
It's a silver metal box. Nothing more.

Imac nice computer except if the monitor goes. What am i paying for again?

Stop playing dumb. You are playing, right? ;)

[Cooknn]

No, not at all. I've been an exclusive Apple user for 23 years and know exactly how good they are. I also know that businesses aren't likely to switch all their software over simply for the sake of a new OS.Good point. But just for grins, I'll work with the home PC numbers. At 40% that would put consumer sales at about $16 Billion per year. Not sure what the average cost of a home PC is, but I would guess with laptop's figured in it's about $1500. That would be would work out to 10 Million PC's shipped. If Apple could grab 25% of that and get say, $50 for every copy of OS X licensed that would come out to $125 Million per year. Heh, you're right again. Almost nothing when you consider Mac sales that get lost as a result :o

[Coca-Cola]

to run Mac OS X on any old PC and third-party hardware? Couldn't Apple just use the existing open source software available. Much like the what Linux uses, in order to simply make the vast array of third party crap run with OS X. It is available?

[rjwill246]

i would rather shoot myself than see dells with OS X
:rolleyes:

Apple's job- beyond its hype- is to make money in the 'computer business.' It has chosen a path that many analysts believe was a mistake and that Apple could have ruled the world by now. Perhaps, in the long run, Apple has done the right thing by ensuring that the world would come to know the company for its integrity of design and excellence of performance, two elements that would almost certainly have been lost had Apple switched places with Microsoft. The software would surely have been proprietary (as in OS 9 and below), locked down and buggy and Apple would have never been able to make all the computers on the world's desktops, meaning that they would have had to license the technology, likely leading to the real-world scenarios that Windows users live with.
The fact is, that time has been able to teach Apple quite a bit- though to its credit, it did predict correctly what open licensing would do- Apple now has the chance to take advantage of the lessons of the market place and venture forth more confidently.
Licensing to HP and Dell, perhaps as the the only two partners to start with, would give OS X the backing of two companies that have the clout to make OS X the standard OS in a very short time. There would be two high end companies (Apple and HP) and, with no disrespect, Dell for the lower end market. Quite enough muscle to see OS X market share sky-rocket. Apple can no longer tout OS X as the supreme OS and lock it down. As a manufacturer, it could no make enough machines by itself and would have to partner with some one.
If ever there was a time, it is now, for Apple to make OS X the standard OS. The elements are in place, the market place is very receptive, there has never been more interest and positive press coverage and this state of affairs will not last forever.
Apple keeps telling us it is not just a software company but reality says it is more a software company these days than a hardware company and unless it acts on the massive amount of leverage and goodwill that it now has, it may well decline to its former sad state. Nothing remains static: one either goes up or goes down- status quo is never more than a passing phase.
Carefully done, under tight control by SJ/Apple, it might be possible that in 10 years we could see OS X (or whatever number) as the OS in the market place, with Apple's market share of computers at 10%, and HP and Dell carrying 40% or so. Sales of the OS alone in this switch would be worth between 10 and 20 billion to Apple, let alone other software that Apple would now be selling in volume.
I would hate Apple, through fear or lack of insight, to become the recipient of the Darwin awards. Even if some loyal supporters feel obliged to leave the gene pool. :D

[jayscheuerle]

in what design? The fact that i have to use the keyboard to eject a disk? The one-button mouse?
The fact that i cannot install another cd drive?
It's a silver metal box. Nothing more.

Imac nice computer except if the monitor goes. What am i paying for again?

Like I said... :rolleyes:

If you can't see the difference in fit and finish between a Lexus and a Ford, then you're just not going to understand why design is important, or more likely, even what it is...

[Mainyehc]

Dell computer would make it run slow and choppy , then people would be like" well since it runs like crap on my 399 computer with like 128 ram it must run like crap on all computers." Keep apple as software and hardware. It one of the reason that OSX easy to use.

Which is what already happened with Panther running on low-end Macs with 256 MB of RAM and the GeForce FX 5200 Ultra... You know, Panther kind of sucked performance-wise in both my old iMac G4 1,25 GHz and my 1st gen. 20'' iMac G5... I only realized how *powerful* (not elegant, or easy-to-use... I got that from day-one) a Mac could be both in everyday use and graphics-intensive tasks the day I upgraded this machine with a 1GB RAM stick. And graphics-wise, I only got decent performance after finally upgrading to Tiger. Even with the GeForce FX 5200 Ultra, CoreImage and other optimizations really made Aqua much more fluid :D. Seriously, what took Apple so long to implement smooth scrolling? :confused:

So I'm pretty sure that Tiger sucks, when running on a 1,25 GHz G4 Mac mini with 256 MB of RAM, and the even worse Radeon 9200 :rolleyes:. Apple really should start making Macs with more memory and better graphics cards out-of-the-box... That's why I was both pissed-off (because my iMac G5 is a 1st Gen.) and happy to see Apple bumping up the iMac's specs, to a point that it became the best-value Mac so far, even with the imminent introduction of Intel-based models. If I didn't have mine already, I'd buy one.

If Apple can keep offering these sweet deals, and even better ones after the Intel switch is over, I could easily see them licensing OS X. After grabbing a big chunk of marketshare, say, 10%-15%, it would be safe to license it. That could become a support nightmare, or maybe not. The other computer manufacturers could be made responsible for providing the drivers and support themselves, which means that you'd still get the best compatibility and support when using a genuine Mac (a bit like today, with QuickTime, iTunes and the iPod, which obviously work smoother with Macs and OS X). As a plus, Macs would still look gorgeous, and be easier to setup and maintain than a regular PC, so, believe me, even if Apple licensed OS X, they wouldn't be pushed out of the hardware business.

And there's more... PCs with OEM copies of OS X could come *without* iLife, so Apple could clearly draw a line between their products and the competition. However, they might face an antitrust lawsuit, just like M$. Still, if they got away with it, Macs would end up being a better value than other PCs, just like they are today!

The only downside to this strategy would be the exposure of Mac OS X to security threats and malware, but as OS X seems to be much more secure by design than Windows, we shouldn't have to worry too much (and besides, Windows wouldn't disappear, it would just lose *a lot* of marketshare, but it'd still be an enticing target :p). In the end, we could still buy (possibly at better prices) and use our favorite Apple hardware, and there would be even more software available for our platform... Would PCs be sometimes buggy and mostly fugly like the "Wintel" boxes of today? Perhaps... But that would still be *their users'* problem, not ours! And definitely, not Apple's, as far as 3rd-party hardware/software incompatibilities are concerned...

Just my €0,02... ;)

[mwpeters8182]

So I'm pretty sure that Tiger sucks, when running on a 1,25 GHz G4 Mac mini with 256 MB of RAM, and the even worse Radeon 9200 :rolleyes:. Apple really should start making Macs with more memory and better graphics cards out-of-the-box...

Just my €0,02... ;)

Agreed, especially on the RAM front. My PB screams now, compared to when I didn't have the extra 512 MB in there. As far as graphics goes, Apple needs to get their act together on the $1000+ machines, but the graphics card in the mini is way better than anything you'll see in a PC in it's price range (integrated, most likely). However, as was the case when I bought my desktop, the video card is easily upgradeable. This isn't the case with the mini.

[w_parietti22]

People! People! :rolleyes: Calm down! this isn't an interview with Steve Jobs saying that they are going to sell Dells with Mac OS X. Its just Michael Dell saying that if Apple was offering Mac OS X to put on Dells he would take the offer. But is this from Apple? nooooooooooooooooooooo!!!!! Nothings offical yet! Stay calm until it really happens! :)

PS- (Help me God! :) ) Dells are, I think, the best Windows XP machines on the market except for the fact that Dells customer service is THE WORST IN THE WORLD! :D

[Pablo]

Choice?! Try and order a Dell with Linux from Dell. You can't. Where's the choice there?

http://www1.us.dell.com/content/products/compare.aspx/precn_n?c=us&cs=04&l=en&s=bsd

I think the double-edged sword axiom is appropriate here. As a user, I see OS X on any Intel box as a good thing. As a shareholder, now that's a different story. I think it would hurt the bottom line.

After having purchased a Powerbook, I see the quality over the old Dell Inspiron I had. But if I was building a non-portable box to stay at home (extra, wife, kid, whatever), then price would become a much bigger factor, and not really caring as much about the build quality of the hardware, it would be great to be able to load OS X on an Intel box.

But thusfar, the vast majority of reasons I've seen in this thread is purely emotional. No reasoning other than people have such a hardon for Apple and it's uniqueness.

[shamino]

Souldn't it be a piece of cake to run Mac OS X on any old PC and third-party hardware? Couldn't Apple just use the existing open source software available. Much like the what Linux uses, in order to simply make the vast array of third party crap run with OS X. It is available?
Of course they could. But they don't want to.

There's a big difference between "can't" and "won't".

[blackbird71]

The switch to Intel tells that.

What can Dell do... well for one get machines into a lot of software developers hands so that they can re-compile their software for Apple's new platform.

I do not know why Jobs want to open anymore "stores". Maybe a deal with Dell to sell Dell computers there and the old PowerPC...

IMHO Jobs would have been better off buying the part of Motorola what was making his clips, and maybe do a joint deal with AMD, to develop the faster clips but that was not to be...

[shamino]

Which is what already happened with Panther running on low-end Macs with 256 MB of RAM and the GeForce FX 5200 Ultra... You know, Panther kind of sucked performance-wise in both my old iMac G4 1,25 GHz and my 1st gen. 20'' iMac G5... I only realized how *powerful* (not elegant, or easy-to-use... I got that from day-one) a Mac could be both in everyday use and graphics-intensive tasks the day I upgraded this machine with a 1GB RAM stick.
Memory size has everything to do with performance on modern systems.

My Mac is a dual 1GHz G4 system. Purchased with 512M, later upgraded to 1G. It runs everything great, even though it is several years old now.

But a brand-new Mac mini with 256M would feel crippled in comparison, despite the faster processor. Upgrade that mini's memory to 512M or 1G, and it will suddenly become much faster.

And the same is true in the PC world. An old 400MHz PC with 512M of RAM running Windows XP will easily outperform a modern 3GHz machine with only 128M.

Modern software (and this includes system software) needs tons of memory. If you don't have the memory, you will spend all of your time swapping and performance will suck. Give it enough memory and you'll find that even slower processors are fast enough for most purposes. This is true for all computers, no matter what CPU and OS are installed.

[shamino]

The switch to Intel tells that.
Says who? Are you aware that Apple will be the ones making and selling these Intel-based Macs?
What can Dell do... well for one get machines into a lot of software developers hands so that they can re-compile their software for Apple's new platform.
Who said Dell will be getting anyting? Apple has explicitly said that they are going to take steps to make sure Mac OS will NOT run on non-Apple hardware.

Michael Dell can be willing to resell Mac OS all he wants, but Apple's still not going to give him any product.

[wPod]

lets say 10 days ago (right before the intel announcement) your PB slips out of your hands as you are walking down the stairs, valiantly you dive for your PB to save its very existance. 10 days later (today) you wake up in a hospital room with a dr telling you that you have quite the concusion, but should be perfectly fine in a few more days. Immediately you ask if your PB is ok. whatever loving family member has been waiting at the hospital with you quickly brings it to your side. Your are happy to see it is in good condition. Upon opening it up, you hop on the hospital's wireless service and check out your favorite web site macrumors.com!! Then, you read this aritcle . . . and cry out "Doc! what is the most powerful pain killer you can get me?!?" He responds, "On a scale of 1 to 10, 10 being the worst, how much does your head hurt." In a horrified voice you say "Doc, its not my head, its my heart! Apple has been turned completely upside down!!! They are going to switch to Intel, and there are dell says it would be willing to sell OS X on their computers!!!"

. . . heh, i could have said you were on vacation, but in this modern age of mobile electronics there isnt anywhere you could go for 10 days and NOT get some sort of electronic update on the world around you!!

but, the point of course is how much apple is changing, and how different the rumors and facts are now from what apple was telling us only months ago. "The Power arcitecture is soooo much better than Intel, you would be crazy to want an Intel chip!!" as a matter of fact, here is an actuall quote from apples site, which is there TODAY! "resulting in a cool tower that runs Photoshop nearly two times faster than a Pentium 4-based system" (hmm, maybe apple wont ever use P4 (hopefully!!!) maybe Pentium D (dual core system) hmm, anyway. I am worried, this will either be a huge change for apple where people like dell actually start shipping OS X and Apple sky rockets to a huge 6-10% market share of opperating systems (and microsoft actually begins to worry) OR. . . apple fails miserably . . . their development screaches to a hault and apple gets even smaller as simply a tiny nitch of cool looking computers running the same hardware as everyone else with a slightly cooler OS (because lunix starts to catch on as more stable than windows!!!) right now im worried. and this artical doesnt help much. anyway, ill stop now.

[Dagless]

take away 'Dell' and replace with 'Mainstream PC developer' and yea, reason to be cheerful. its good to think that computer producers are considering looking elsewhere.

the past couple of years Steve has been working up to something. i doubt x86 CPU's are going to be the biggest Apple news in the coming year.

[Dagless]

The switch to Intel tells that.

What can Dell do... well for one get machines into a lot of software developers hands so that they can re-compile their software for Apple's new platform.

I do not know why Jobs want to open anymore "stores". Maybe a deal with Dell to sell Dell computers there and the old PowerPC...

IMHO Jobs would have been better off buying the part of Motorola what was making his clips, and maybe do a joint deal with AMD, to develop the faster clips but that was not to be...

its been said but no. Apple are making the Mactels. Steve dosnt want out of the hardware side of things. why would he? Apple are the only people developing killer looking machines, we know that and he knows that. nothing is visually on par with a Mac.

also if he was to stop hardware then it would mean a loss of 50% or so of Apple. Ives would go. he's only an industrial designer. no need for him in a software world.

wont happen.

[JeffTL]

Mr. Dell would no doubt like the only profitable hardware company other than his to go out of business.

[blackbird71]

Says who? Are you aware that Apple will be the ones making and selling these Intel-based Macs?
Who said Dell will be getting anyting? Apple has explicitly said that they are going to take steps to make sure Mac OS will NOT run on non-Apple hardware.

Michael Dell can be willing to resell Mac OS all he wants, but Apple's still not going to give him any product.

Sorry Jobs Intel switch will force him to release it to other Intel/AMD platforms.

Nobody is going to pay extra for an Apple Logo on an Intel box...

[MontyZ]

Things don't always stay exactly as they are forever. In fact, that never happens. So, those of you so attached to your precious PPC chips need to get over it. Move on. There's a lot more to life than computers anyway.

[blackbird71]

its been said but no. Apple are making the Mactels. Steve dosnt want out of the hardware side of things. why would he? Apple are the only people developing killer looking machines, we know that and he knows that. nothing is visually on par with a Mac.

also if he was to stop hardware then it would mean a loss of 50% or so of Apple. Ives would go. he's only an industrial designer. no need for him in a software world.

wont happen.

the Market will force him to do that... When retails sells start dropping for the "old and busted" PowerPC machines and he does not have the "New and Improved" machines with SOFTWARE to run on it.... Wall Street does not care a bit about Ives. They care about $$$$$...

[macnulty]

MacInDell anyone?

[w_parietti22]

There's a lot more to life than computers anyway.

There is? ;)

I dont see why people are saying that an Apple wont be an Apple if it has an intel chip in it??? :confused: PowerPC chips are made by IBM right? so are you saying that you could consider a Apple an IBM :eek:

[jcgerm]

Things don't always stay exactly as they are forever. In fact, that never happens. So, those of you so attached to your precious PPC chips need to get over it. Move on. There's a lot more to life than computers anyway.

Seriously. Things change and a lot of you guys seem to be very close-minded about Macs. Give things a chance. 1/2 the posts I've seen in rumor threads involving anything in the PC world are always whining, sulking, or ranting. I certainly hope your lives don't revolve around what brand of CPU is in you computer.

Apple is a smart company and they know what they're doing.

[JGowan]

What drives Jobs ? The speech at Stanford gives us a clue. He eyeballed a life span of 3 - 6 months. Are you sure that he's looking for computing domination, or is he just trying to give the elect a wonderful computing experience ?Agreed. This certainly isn't about the money in Jobs' book. He's personally worth 3 billion dollars. Shareholders want Apple to make money, but they are backing Apple for a reason -- because they believe in Apple's philosphy of "doing it right". Otherwise they would've just bought MS stock a long time ago.

Steve Jobs realized many years ago that being the best at what you do was its own reward. Despite many opinions on this thread, it's not always about the money. Thank God. Or Apple wouldn't exist now.

[shamino]

Sorry Jobs Intel switch will force him to release it to other Intel/AMD platforms.

Nobody is going to pay extra for an Apple Logo on an Intel box...
I can only respond to this by saying that I completely disagree with your assertion.

But since neither of us can predict the future, there's little point in debating the matter any further.

Just don't post your beliefs as if they were facts. The fact is that Apple has said that there will be no port of Mac OS to run on non-Apple hardware. If you think they are lying sacks of excrement, go right ahead and believe what you want, but don't go around inventing press releases that don't exist.

[Cooknn]

Steve Jobs realized many years ago that being the best at what you do was its own reward. Despite many opinions on this thread, it's not always about the money. Thank God. Or Apple wouldn't exist now.I'm sure this has been discussed before, but do you think Steve's cancer scare has motivated him to move forward with more of a sense of urgency? I mean, he didn't waste any time dumping IBM. Who knows what's around the corner. It's going to be fun to watch Apple in the next few years :)

[feakbeak]

Steve Jobs realized many years ago that being the best at what you do was its own reward. Despite many opinions on this thread, it's not always about the money. Thank God. Or Apple wouldn't exist now.We should ask Apple's CFO. :D

I believe Apple does try to dance to a different tune than most of the market but at the end of the day you have to hit your numbers. Ask anyone involved with the stock market, if you miss your numbers consistently people will dump your stock and you won't have much capital to work with. I know Apple has several billion in the bank and they're hitting their numbers, but the bottom line is essential to staying in business. I'm sure they do their best to be innovative and Steve & co. seem to really enjoy what they do... still, without the money behind the people, no innovative products can be realized. There is a side of Apple that is all about the money - at least their stock holders sure hope so!

[blackbird71]

I can only respond to this by saying that I completely disagree with your assertion.

But since neither of us can predict the future, there's little point in debating the matter any further.

Just don't post your beliefs as if they were facts. The fact is that Apple has said that there will be no port of Mac OS to run on non-Apple hardware. If you think they are lying sacks of excrement, go right ahead and believe what you want, but don't go around inventing press releases that don't exist.

Watch Wall Street's reaction to Dell's offer tomorrow... IMHO they will eat it up.

[AlasdairM]

Apples primary objective is "to make the best personal computers in the world." To do this they need to keep the system closed to keep the compatibility bugs out the system.

They provide the software, the hardware, the support. (Well, the latter can be negotiable :p)

Thus: why would they open Mac OS X up to PCs? They would lose control, and ultimately, shatter any chance of reaching their their primary objective.

Whether they would be more profitable as a business if they open Mac OS X to PC's is another issue.

Just my two penneth :)

[Mainyehc]

but go too far & you're no longer cool. cool/uncool is a fine line. there are tons of examples of this, i'm sure, but Skechers comes to mind. i remember when i bought my first pair in San Fran back when i was working for Apple. they were big & chunky and everyone thought they were so cool & interesting. 6 or 7 years later, you can go to Sears or someplace & pick up a pair. sure, now they have a much larger distribution channel, but they've lost the cool appeal. i wouldn't buy a pair now for that exact reason (call me a fashion snob, w/e). ;)

Two things: first, you *are* a fashion snob... Second, I'm guessing that those Skechers weren't *that* well designed to begin with... Maybe they were "cool" as in "fashionable"...

See, a 6-year-old iMac G3 is *still* a cool machine, as a cube, or even a Pismo PowerBook. It all comes down to design quality, not some subjective sense of "coolness". The *thing* itself feels and looks cool, but it's not because of looks alone... It's because of the combination of that old principle, "form follows function", with some cutting edge materials, thanks to ingenious industrial design. Add some great software that integrates seamlessly with the machine, and you're all set: you have one truly *cool* product in your hands.

Want two better examples, as you could argue that those products still look "cool" because they were designed back when Apple was still a "cool" company? The iPod... Look at it... It's all over the place! Yet, it still looks cool, very cool. And what about the iPod Shuffle? Apple opted for cheaper plastics and a no-screen approach, yet, the damn thing is as cool as every other Apple product (I own both a 1GB Shuffle and a 3G 20GB iPod, plus an iMac G5, and had an iMac G4 before this one, so I know what I'm talking about). Why? Because those key components - good looks, and perfect functionality - are all there... It's the whole package that counts, not the fact that it's supposedly a "status symbol" or whatever!

That being said, I won't stop using Macs even if Apple grabs more than 10% of marketshare, or licenses OS X or whatever, just because their products lose some of their abstract "cool" appeal. As long as the quality of their products doesn't decrease, and as long as they don't stop being innovative, I'm fine with that, IMHO. And so far, Apple doesn't seem to be resting on its laurels in both their hardware and software development, so I sense a bright future for our favorite company. :)

P.S. - In case you didn't notice, for me, "cool" != cool... "Cool" is what most people thought that the iPod was all about, thus calling it "just a fad"... Cool is what it really is, a ****** great and revolutionary product, period (and it really runs much cooler in your pocket than a PM Dual 2.7GHz G5 - or a Pentium 4, for that matter - would on your desk :D ... Why didn't Apple go with ARM instead of Intel? :p ).

[blackbird71]

Thus: why would they open Mac OS X up to PCs? They would lose control, and ultimately, shatter any chance of reaching their their primary objective.


Two words Wall Street....

For example,, about 6 weeks ago, a superintendent of schools in Georgia went out on a limb and order 1,600 iBooks. Then Jobs does his Intel switch. Would you spend taxpayers money on "old and busted" iBooks or would you want "new and improved"... Then along comes Dell and says we will put OSX in our laptops today...

If you were that superintendent what would you WANT for your taxpayers money.

If Jobs says no, that super would kill that order fast...

And then there is what Wall Street would say to Jobs losing big orders....

[Tamer Brad]

Two words Wall Street....

For example,, about 6 weeks ago, a superintendent of schools in Georgia went out on a limb and order 1,600 iBooks. Then Jobs does his Intel switch. Would you spend taxpayers money on "old and busted" iBooks or would you want "new and improved"... Then along comes Dell and says we will put OSX in our laptops today...

If you were that superintendent what would you WANT for your taxpayers money.

They're not old and busted for God's sake.

Can't I go into any topic on this board without having to see people make these ridiculous statements?

[blackbird71]

They're not old and busted for God's sake.

Can't I go into any topic on this board without having to see people make these ridiculous statements?

PowerPC in Apples are dead.... Intel is King get over it.

IMHO Jobs shot himself in the foot over this,,, but he has to make it work.

[MontyZ]

PowerPC in Apples are dead.... Intel is King get over it. IMHO Jobs shot himself in the foot over this,,, but he has to make it work.
Shot himself in the foot? How exactly? It's not like the decision was forced on him. This is a tactical move. You or I don't know how things will turn out until they do, so, your gloom-and-doom predictions are baseless.

[Belly-laughs]

…

Rather have a mac Mini on my desk than a 30 lb black bland box.

Agree. But would it be so bad if Apple decided to license OS X to certain PC manufacturers? I can see Apple allowing OS X to run on low cost, low margin hardware produced by others. Apple has the mini, other manufacturers would have to top that technologically and form-wise to get your money. And if they do, Apple will have to up that. Hardly bad for you is it?

[Doug Stafford]

Apple moves from PPC to Intel.

So?

Where is it written (or am I just missing it somewhere here), that OS X will just be able to run on PC's? ... or ported to PC's? ... or licenced for PC manufacturers?

I really do not see this processor change as a big deal.

I use Apple products for their ease of use, OS X's incredible interface, and of course, the overall Apple experience. I really could not care less what's under the hood as long as it does a good job. Just because PC's use Intel arcitecture does not mean Apple will licence out OS X. I don't see much changing for the Apple lineup except for more powerful and more affordable Apple products based on Intel processors.

My 2 cents.

[corey]

PowerPC in Apples are dead.... Intel is King get over it.

IMHO Jobs shot himself in the foot over this,,, but he has to make it work.he's right. my G4 stopped working the very moment Jobs announced they would be switching to Intel.
:rolleyes:

[blackbird71]

he's right. my G4 stopped working the very moment Jobs announced they would be switching to Intel.
:rolleyes:

Wall Street Wall Street Wall Street.... That who Jobs has to report to...

[shazammy]

regarding my assertion that Dell sold iPods at one point...



Actually I just looked it up, and I was right, they did.

http://news.com.com/2100-1040-963901.html

article includes this great quote:
"We don't consider Apple a competitor across the full range of products," said Dell spokeswoman Mary Fad. "Maybe it would be odd if we had iMacs on the store (Web site)."

Wow, that surpises me. Especially when Michael Dell proves what an idiot he is in this article: http://www.extremeipod.com/article2/0,1759,1752105,00.asp

He wants to be seen as "cool" so badly (like Gates and Ballmer - holy sweaty monkeyboy, Batman) but they just can't make it. Some of the Dell systems I've seen (low end) are just crapware, and if Apple ever turns into that, I'll just make the switch full-time to Windows. I use the Mac because of the style first, and the OS second. I don't want a hunk of boxy black plastic on my desk.

What I REALLY want is a Sandbenders computer from "Snow Crash". Those would rock.

[shazammy]

PowerPC in Apples are dead.... Intel is King get over it.

IMHO Jobs shot himself in the foot over this,,, but he has to make it work.

Are you an idiot?

[greenstork]

I posted this in another forum but it seems relevant to this discussion:

Software may be the soul of Apple, but it's a business like any other, it's survival and success based on profit.

Most of their core software comes free on new computers, some simple math for you:

OS Upgrade : Tiger $129
iLife: $79

vs.

iMac: $1300-$1800
Power Mac: $1500-3000

Hardware may not define Apple (arguably), but it certainly sustains it, and fuels creativity. This corporate reality can not be underestimated. Apple is in the business of selling systems, of which there is a hardware and software component. This is their niche and they're quite successful at it.

There is no chance OS X will end up on a Dell. Apple didn't expand into retail around the world so they could sell iPods, Tiger and Final Cut Pro.

[Stella]

As I said, not everyone cares about the machine - as long as it does what they want it to and a Dell would suit people fine.. the machine is of little importance.

If I don't care about quality I'll get an Emac or mac Mini ( low spec graphic cards etc).

So many people are misguided about the quality of Dell computers - they get on the band wagon of slagging off Dell and know little about what they are talking about.

Apple use substandard hardware in their computers too you know - i.,e for a long while Emacs were plagued with flickering screens. Low Quality graphic cards in all ranges of their products ( upgrade option available).

Also apple's displays in their LCDs aren't exactly the best quality, I've seen better in other laptops.

However, overall I like the hardware but its the software that counts, and the hardware second, because its all pretty reliable these days. ( Lots of people have had bad experiences with apple products, and like wise, other manufacturers ).



No... the key word is quality, and letting Mac OS X loose on questionable hardware is not the way to go, that will only hurt Apple, BIG time.

If you don't care about quality, get a Dell, by all means, and run whatever low-quality OS (i.e. Windows) if you're clueless or any more secure OS (Linux/BSD) if you're a techie...

[Object-X]

I have a philossophy that says never bet your life on what someone else will do. Steve Jobs is running apple the best way he sees fit, regardless of what the mac faithfull thinks. Why, only a couple of weeks ago, there were people claiming they'd rather die than see intel inside.. heck, some people even thought that news.com were idiots for even saying apple would move to intel cause if they went X86, it would be AMD. I realize this is a rumor board and part of the fun is predicting what apple would do next but did you see the guy on the board that said he'd shoot himself if apple licensed OSX to dell?. If anyone knows that guy, please get him help. Steve Jobs could give a rats ass how much you hate dell. If Apple never license their operating system, it wouldn't be becuase they thought Dells were inferior. It would be because they decided it was not a business decision for them to make. It amuses me how people think Jobs would only license (if ever) the operating system to some company who made beautifull cases. News flash folks, jobs is running a company. Just like every CEO, he likes bigger jets, more money, etc. If it made sense, he'd license to Dell and he wouldn't care a bit what you all think. He probably doesn't even know or care to ask.

You're post is worth reading again, so here it is.

[Goliath]

Like I said... :rolleyes:

If you can't see the difference in fit and finish between a Lexus and a Ford, then you're just not going to understand why design is important, or more likely, even what it is...


Exactly I'm with you on that...

saying a powermac g5 is just an expensive metal box is ludicrous

Want the most compelling reason this isn't so... Place a Powermac and a Dell side by side and open the cases-

The Powermac with everything nicely compartmentalised- no extraneous wires, bits shoved there, outdated legacy ports/floppies and I could go on...

Open the Dell and everything that is so nicely designed on the Powermac just isn't there. And the thing that gets me is people actually want to mod these things with see through side panels with flashing lights and neons - like they're actually proud to show off the inside of pile of crap!!??

Sure the Dell may do the job but it sure as hell isn't beautiful, quality engineering

[Mitthrawnuruodo]

As I said, not everyone cares about the machine - as long as it does what they want it to and a Dell would suit people fine.. the machine is of little importance.

If I don't care about quality I'll get an Emac or mac Mini ( low spec graphic cards etc).

So many people are misguided about the quality of Dell computers - they get on the band wagon of slagging off Dell and know little about what they are talking about.

Apple use substandard hardware in their computers too you know - i.,e for a long while Emacs were plagued with flickering screens. Low Quality graphic cards in all ranges of their products ( upgrade option available).

Also apple's displays in their LCDs aren't exactly the best quality, I've seen better in other laptops.

However, overall I like the hardware but its the software that counts, and the hardware second, because its all pretty reliable these days. ( Lots of people have had bad experiences with apple products, and like wise, other manufacturers ).Seems like you're on the wrong forums. Maybe you should go home (http://www.dellrumors.com/), again... :D

[Cooknn]

As I said, not everyone cares about the machine - as long as it does what they want it to and a Dell would suit people fine.. the machine is of little importanceWell, I'm ruined for anything but an Apple box in the future. Having an anodized aluminum Power Mac G5 and matching Cinema Display will do that to you :o