Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'MacBytes.com News Discussion' started by MacBytes, Jan 15, 2005.
Link: We\'re in the era of Jobs II
Posted on MacBytes.com
Approved by Mudbug
mr. dell was wrong. just see how easily apple can make lovelt sub $500 computers, probably cheaper if they were intel based. form before function of course. but great form is appealing.
ignore my posts. i´m pissed.
I know I'll get lynched for saying this but Apple should license OSX on Intel platforms. OSX has gained alot of traction in the IT sector, and this naturally translates to increased corporate acceptance. Apple stands to make more money licensing than by bundling in hardware. They can still make great Apple hardware and people like me will still buy them. Just my opinion.
You will get lynched.
Apple makes most of its money from hardware sales. If OSX was available for PCs then that market would collapse. The ill-fated dalliance with the clones was a perfect example...
Yeah, might have been an argument for making OSX on Intels pre Mac mini, but the variations in hardware would probably cause some backlash and negate the Apple experience. Unlike the iTunes on Windows model where you could argue it increased iPod marketshare, there is no Apple hardware that could tie in with a move to put Intel on OSX that wouldn't threaten Apples' existing hardware base.
Since the Mac mini, the Apple experience can be contained within known hardware (VGA DVI displays & USB keyboards), and it's cheaper and lower risk. If they grow marketshare to the mainstream and Apple don't piss these people off, then they move the business forward, buying upgrades to OSX, newer hardware etc. and it's going to a more controlled win.
Yeah, putting OS X in an Intel platform is like pouring fine wine in a beer can. Even if it did happen, people would still be afraid to change their Windows program to this "new" operation system. The only people who would be willing to change are the educated PC dorks, and even they are buying mini Macs.
Never gonna happen. There are lots of reasons why, but it's been discussed ad nauseam here. Thanks to the G5 and the Mini (not to mention the iPod), I don't see a need anyway.
Well so far, Hell has frozen over twice.
iTunes on PC makes sense. Cheap Mac makes sense. OS X on Intel/AMD makes no sense.
I believe it could make sense. There are just some people who will not buy Apple hardware no matter the debate. Some people feel like they'll be locked in, so by offering an alternative OS, Apple would gain a largely untapped 97% of the market. Quicktime downloads to the Windows platform already accounts for 98% of their total downloads.
By opening OSX to AMD/INTEL users, Apple also opens up their entire library of applications, from iLife to the Production Suite of FCP, DVD Studio Pro, Logic, Shake, WebObjects, Xgrid, Xsan, etc. There is tremendous revenue potential. iTunes for Windows single-handedly made the iPod the market-leader that it is.
Yesss... but also... No!
Perfectly valid point, but the whole "apple experience" occurs because they are certain that their OS will work with their hardware. We'd start seeing... "device drivers"
It also has the potential to drive them out of business. Look at the clones. And that was before it was as easy to pirate software. Not to mention all of those programs would have to be recompiled, or emulated. PPC is different than x86. Plus, since Apple makes more money on hardware (like the iPod) and less on software (like iTunes), they would actually be loosing money.
This has been discussed quite a bit here. There are pros and cons, but mostly it would be pro for us, and con for them. It just isn't something they would do. The other things make sense, but this really doesn't. Really.
And I don't think a PC version of OS X would sell in the first place.
There have been a lot of PC operating systems superior to Windows (BeOS, OS/2, and several others) that all died. Either because Microsoft explicitly set out to kill the system, or because of poor support for PC hardware and Windows applications.
If Apple jumps into that market, the first thing that will happen will be a massive anti-Apple marketing campaign from Microsoft. This campaign will start out talking about how it can't run Windows apps without an emulator, which will be correct. It probably won't be able to PowerPC/Mac apps without an emulator as well.
If, for some reason, Apple manages to get their developers to port their apps (which will be a long and slow process), the next phase of the attack campaigns will focus on the lack of device drivers. There are literally thousands of different hardware devices installed in PCs. Some are current modern devices, and some are legacy devices where the manufacturer has gone out of business. Any successful PC operating system has to support most (if not all) of these. Building up a complete suite of drivers is hard enough on the Mac platform, where there's a certain amount of control on the hardware. On the PC platform, where you have no control over the hardware and where many hardware manufacturers will refuse to write drivers, this task is a killer.
And, in addition to all this, you're not just competing against Windows. Anybody who decides he wants to move from Windows to an incompating operating system will likely look towards Linux as a replacement. This hypothetical Mac OS/x86 would have to compete against that as well. And the established base for applications and device drivers on Linux is very substantial right now.
No, I can't believe a port of Mac OS to the PC could be anything other than an abysmal failure. And a very expensive failure at that.
Which means x86 versions of all these apps will have to be developed, tested and supported.
And if the apps break because their Yoyodyne-6000 video card has a buggy driver, they will say "lousy Apple software" and switch back to Windows with a grudge that make keep for years.
There is potential. There's even greater (and far more likely) potential to destroy everything the company has built up over the last 10 years.
While huge market share would be nice, that should not be a company's overall goal. If you're developing and selling a solid quality product at a good profit, that's a good goal. To conclude that it's not enough because a viscious anti-competitive 800lb gorilla has a larger market share is to destroy your own success because of an ego trip.
Heck, look at the PC market.
While the PC platform is ubiquitous, look where IBM (the company that invented the platform) is now. A minor niche player that's selling their PC division to a Chinese company.
A dominating product does not guarantee the success of the company that invented the product. Even if (in some fantasy) this hypothetical Mac OS/x86 should dominate, what makes you think Apple will be the one in charge of it and getting rich off of it?