DevilsRejection, perhaps you should read through some of this. I can see what you're trying to say but it could be more influential if structured more thoughtfully. 
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Why doesn't Apple make OS X avilable on all x86 machines?
- Thread starter DevilsRejection
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
- Status
DevilsRejection said:
I think you fundamently miss 3 points.
1)A Mac costs more because its better... That's why Apple is able to sell so many of them at the moment, even with the slightly higher price tag. When I say better, I mean that Apple hardware is well-designed, and their operating system is brilliant, way better than Windows XP. It's hardly surprising that an Apple system has a slight mark-up compared to a decent brand name PC
2) If Apple starts selling OSX, they will have real trouble shifting their hardware. They would be forced to become just another PC manufacturer, and Dell would kill them with economies of scale. You are probably thinking that this loss of hardware sales would be compensated by sales of OSX, but see below.
3) These days, only a complete fool would pin their hopes on shrinkwrap software as a business model. Windows is facing stiff competition from Linux. How do you sell your product for $150 when the competitor's product costs $0. As Linux improves, which it is doing very rapidly, and as Wine improves to enable the use reliable use of Windows apps, Windows itself is going to have an extremely tough time staying relevant. Even Microsoft knows this, why do you think they are pushing so hard into the hardware market with XBox and Zune at the moment. You can't Open Source hardware.
Because of these three reasons, you're going to be out of luck if you want to run OSX on a $500 laptop. Too bad. Save your pennies, switch to Linux, or suck up Windows. You see, you do have choice. Unfortunately, I have the feeling that when you say "I want choice" what you actually mean is "I want to be able to buy a Ferrari for the price of a Toyota". Welcome to the real world...
What do they have to lose?
About 50% of their income.
Currently the only machines that run OSX are Macs. If you want OSX you MUST buy a Mac. If Apple licensed OSX to every "Dodgy Bros. Computers Inc" who wanted to build computers then why would you buy a Mac?
They won't make up nearly any of the lost Mac sales (and they would be massive losses in the order of 90%+) in selling OSX. Not a chance.
It might make sense in your head but it makes absolutely no business sense and Apple is a business, they exist to make money - not to make you happy.
Want OSX? Buy a Mac.
Don't wanna buy a Mac? Tough.
That's the business model, might not sound right to you but it's certainly doing OK for Apple.
About 50% of their income.
Currently the only machines that run OSX are Macs. If you want OSX you MUST buy a Mac. If Apple licensed OSX to every "Dodgy Bros. Computers Inc" who wanted to build computers then why would you buy a Mac?
They won't make up nearly any of the lost Mac sales (and they would be massive losses in the order of 90%+) in selling OSX. Not a chance.
It might make sense in your head but it makes absolutely no business sense and Apple is a business, they exist to make money - not to make you happy.
Want OSX? Buy a Mac.
Don't wanna buy a Mac? Tough.
That's the business model, might not sound right to you but it's certainly doing OK for Apple.
this could work seeing as apple has the design edge, most mac users would stick to apple at least for portables and probably imacs, and probably mac pro's seeing as apple has always been competative with other workstations, they only market apple would give away would be the consumer tower market which they never wanted anyway.
still the 10% marketshare requirement still stands.
still the 10% marketshare requirement still stands.
DevilsRejection said:
Ignoring all the real business reasons for not doing this I feal compelled to correct you.
OSX does not use a BSD kernel. It uses a Mach microkernel with a BSD subsytem layered on top of it. BSD device drivers do not work on OSX. OSX device drivers are written for IOKit using a really cool object-oriented model with a reduced subset of C++. This is a unique Apple way of doing things (and really clever). Apple would have to write and support thousands of device drivers for this. Why bother.
If we move onto the business case: Apple run at over 20% margin on all their sales. If we assume the average Mac costs $1000 (it doesn't but this easy) then Apple make at least $200. OSX costs around $150 at retail. So if Apple sell you OSX and don't sell you any hardware they would have to charge you at least $350 to make it worth their while. As they would spend ages supporting your strange combination of hardware they would have to raise this to $400-$500 (especially when you consider how low my $1000 average was). Still attractive to you?
DevilsRejection said:
Well I CARE! I like my things to look pretty. I like my motorcycle, my office, my kitchen and my computer to look pretty. Not to impress others, but to feel comfortable in my rooms. I'm a graphic designer, and if a designer may not like design then who may? So, each day when I start working I go to my powerbook and enjoy the fact that it is pretty. Working would be a very little bit less funny if I would be staring at an ugly black plastic box the whole day.
And I tell you something. Aestethics are very under-consciously, you may not actively notice it, but you are more productive in an environment you like (lets say white office with lots of plants and many windows) than in a not comfortable environment (grey office with grey desk and grey walls in the cellar). Of course, this may not be the truth for boys living in the cellar of their mamies house sitting on their old couch covered with pizza and chips pieces, whining "oh I can't put the blabla brand of graphics card I like in a mac". This time I could say, who.. the.. hell.. cares? But I'm not going to lower myself to this level.
Personally I would not want apple to open OS X for every computer, but I understand that there are people like you who want such a sollution. But please realize that your opinion is not the opinion of everyone else.
Ah but you see, what happens if I don't like Apple's look? I'm stuck using their design that I don't like.
Walk into your local computer store and you can choose from 100's of cases and more than 20 laptop brands
Choice, it's all I want.
I prefer the ThinkPad look, love it! And I love how the Mac Mini looks.
Walk into your local computer store and you can choose from 100's of cases and more than 20 laptop brands
Choice, it's all I want.
I prefer the ThinkPad look, love it! And I love how the Mac Mini looks.
DevilsRejection said:
You have the choice.
If you don't like the choice of a Mac then don't buy one.
Want OSX? Buy a Mac. Don't want to buy a Mac? You don't get OSX.
Those are your choices.
You don't seem to want choices though, you want everything. OSX on generic x86 machines is not going to happen, Apple would go bust (they would too, losing half your income overnight as Mac sales dry up). Apple don't want to go bust so they market a business model.
Your choice is either to accept that business model or not. If not, you choose to accept the shortcomings.
Suck it up princess.
fatsoforgotso said:
So if i want to use their OS I have to use their hardware, doesn't seem very fair at all.
DevilsRejection said:
Life isn't fair. Apple have a business model. Until you come up with a valid, working alternative simply whining that it isn't fair will acheive nothing. Would you be willing to pay $400 for a single copy of OSX?
DevilsRejection said:
I walked into my local computer store and all of these 100 cases and 20 laptop brands look like crap. The sony vaios are quite nice, but not as reduced and minimalistic as the apple laptops. And if you prefer the thinkpad look, then buy one if you do not already have one and be happy with it. And if you do not like windows, run linux on it. And maybe get a mini as a desktop if you want OS X.
DevilsRejection said:
Well, Apple exist to make money, so yeah, you have to use their hardware to use their software.
Like you said a few posts back, users use software, hardware is just hardware...
So why does it really matter if you have to use what Apple build their computers?
Apple hardware is on par with the PC world (but more time is spent on design) and even more so with the Intel switch, prices are more competitive too.
I don't feel your argument is particulary constructive, or informed.
Rich.
Not marketing your product ( OSX ) is stupid. OSX is what makes a Mac, not its same as PC hardware. (95% of the world went windows while Jobs kept on insisting you have to buy our low spec hardware to get our OS. Apples mistake. Sure Apples doing well but Microstink won this by default. If you make a great product then sell it. OSX is a great product but if you have to buy "lame behind the times hardware to get it then Vista may be the solution.
fatsoforgotso said:
Maybe he's saying if you have lame and behind the times hardware then Vista is your solution.
Hard drives,GPu's,expandability,etc. Instead they have played you must buy all this to get that game. Also the yrs of iMac vs Powermac game and the years of lesser GPU's etc. Hardware wise you have little choice with Apple while with other companies hardware you can order a machine to suit you not some stinking marketing group commitee that decided integrated graphics are fine and other sillyness. Its been said for years and years that with Mac you get the best software on the worst hardware. Thats changing now but if you had been using Macs for years like me it would make you want to SCREAM! Example... I have a perfect monitor but want a new computer, with Apple there is two choices Mini with nothing, Or PowerMac with everything though it cant even hold another optical drive?& little choice in Graphic systems. Anyways thats Apple.fatsoforgotso said:
Dont Hurt Me said:
Bear in mind that the % of computer owners who actually bother to upgrade their PC is very low. People on a computer forum are very likely to want to do this; the average consumer wouldn't know what any of those things were if it came up and bit them.
I've had PCs and Macs and all I've ever felt the need to do on them is upgrade the RAM which was easy on both. By the time I felt I needed more graphics power or a better hard drive, it was cheaper just to buy a new computer rather than go through the hassle of ensuring compatibility with a 2-3 year old mother board. I like playing with computers; I don't like playing with their insides.
fatsoforgotso said:
Strikes me that Apple is one of the few genuine innovators in the computer industry - where they lead, everyone else follows. Remember when the iMac first arrived? The PC community scoffed, said it would never sell, said that the design was irrelevant, said that Steve Jobs was insane to say that the floppy drive was obsolete and who the hell would buy a computer without one?
And then it goes on to become a globally-recognised design icon and it sells in its millions. PC manufacturers start to realise that hey, maybe design aesthetics *do* matter, and suddenly you start seeing PC cases that aren't just beige boxes any more.
I just like Choices, with Apple and talking the past 10 years or so choice was pretty limited. Things are moving along again now with the Intel switch and there isnt any reason for Apple not to market their software unless they just dont want to. Apple just doesnt want to.
- Status