Could HP make Macs?

[imaswitcheryeah]

Here is a link to a C|Net story about HP getting rid of it's 64-bit Itanium Workstations:

C|Net - HP Nixes Itanium

Ever since HP and Apple struck the deal of marketing an HP iPod, I felt that this could mean great things in the future, in terms of HP really helping Apple. What I mean by this, is could there be a possibility in the far-reaching future, that HP could market an HP Macintosh computer? Could HP be making room for an HP branded 64-bit PowerMac G5?

HP is doing huge things that are really going to boost Apple. Check out this story on AppleInsider about Apple and HP planning to ship 1 million iPods a month. Pretty nice stuff.

Now with all the delays of new Apple hardware, mostly the PowerMac Rev. B model line, could HP come in and really save the day on this particular front? Think of what it could mean if HP branded a PowerMac, and sold them through their vast distribution channels. If it could meet the improvement of iPod units shipping, this could mean huge gains for Apple.

There are a lot of things that would have to be sorted out to make something like this happen, and maybe much more to make sure Apple comes out the winner on the deal. But to keep things simple, I would like to see what you MacRumors readers think would need to happen for this to be the best thing to happen to Apple. Like, would HP support the machines, not Apple? If a deal came to light of an HP branded PMG5, could HP push even further and convince Steve Jobs to release an x86-version of Mac OS X and sell it on already-produced HP x86 machines? This could push Microsoft's foot out of HP's door and HP can sell Mac OS X installed HP computers for the home computer market, and keep it's HP-Linux around for other markets. This list could go on and on...

 

[Blue Velvet]

I thought that enabling other manufaturers to build Mac clones had turned out to be a disastrous business decision?

Isn't it the hardware that makes the real profit?
Not the 4 cents a song from the iTunes store...

 

[imaswitcheryeah]

I thought that enabling other manufaturers to build Mac clones had turned out to be a disastrous business decision?

Yes, I agree. That didn't work out like they had planned. Their demise was that the companies that built them were not already hugely-established computer manufacturers. This was Motorola's first shot at building a computer, and the other companies were basically start ups that were similar to the small Windows machine builders that we have today like Systemax. Those were destined to fail with Windows and it's hardware parters beginning to really pull in massive amounts of customers during that time.

Isn't it the hardware that makes the real profit?

Yes, and HP wouldn't reap all of the profits from a deal like this. Apple wouldn't let that happen because it would be suicide. It would be a deal similar to the one Apple and HP have with the iPod. Apple licenses the iPod for a hefty fee since they are already such good sellers, and HP gets to brand them and sell them on their web-site and worldwide distribution channel, plus a cut of every one sold. I don't know the details of the deal, but I think most of us agree that Steve Jobs would never have signed the deal if Apple wasn't making out like a bandit on it.

Not the 4 cents a song from the iTunes store...

Yeah, Apple makes profits only on it's hardware and the iTunes music store.

 

[stoid]

The hardware supply problems that Apple has had of late are related to manufacture issues, not enough procs made by IBM, not enough mini HDs made by Hitachi. For all products except the iPod that are selling well, Apple's biggest problem is manufacturing. The iPod is a unique situation. Apple was having no problem making enough, and demand is through the roof. The problem was getting the product into the consumers hands. Cue HP and their enormous distribution channels.

 

[Sun Baked]

IBM would be a more likely candidate for sharing a machine/platform than HP, since IBM has a history of working with Apple on machines already.

The death of Windows for PPC and the clones killed the momentum in the platform at IBM (they got stuck with 604e in their multi-CPU PowerPC workstation), and the PPC970 is a decent choice for goosing their workstations back to life.

But right now IBM really has a hardon for the blades, and even Motorola has adopted the PPC970 blades in their next generation backplane.

 

[Brother Michael]

If a deal came to light of an HP branded PMG5, could HP push even further and convince Steve Jobs to release an x86-version of Mac OS X and sell it on already-produced HP x86 machines? This could push Microsoft's foot out of HP's door and HP can sell Mac OS X installed HP computers for the home computer market, and keep it's HP-Linux around for other markets. This list could go on and on...

STOP STOP STOP!!!!!! x86 VERSIONS OF OS X WILL NEVER HAPPEN!!!!!

Mike

 

[stoid]

STOP STOP STOP!!!!!! x86 VERSIONS OF OS X WILL NEVER HAPPEN!!!!!

Mike

And the question is... why not?


Well, Billy, I'm glad you asked!



See, Apple is all about integration. They produce each component from start to finish so they know that everything will work with everything. If Apple brings another manufacturer into the loop, they loose that tight knit integration. One big thing that Apple has on MS is that they don't have the same driver issues for the end user to wade through. If Mac OS X started working on x86 Apple would have to support hundreds or thousands of new configurations. Furthermore, even though it's being proved more and more now that Apple computers are not more expensive than WinTel boxes, Apple doesn't make cheap computers, and so when 'the masses' see that they can use a superior OS on their bargain box, all companies that make quality hardware lose.

 

[Abstract]

So Apple is going to design the machines, continue developing the Apple iApps and other brilliant things, and continue their industrial design superiority over all others, and then they're going to let HP sell it as an HP product? Even if Apple gets a very sizable chunk of the (apple) pie from every HP-Mac sold, HP should still be forced to put in some of the money used by Apple to design the product lines they'd share. HP would actually be spending less on R&D in this case....they'd be what Disney is to Pixar -- piggybacking leeches.

Apple is about to soar anyway. Developing something that people want is the difficult part. Selling something that people want is much easier, even if HP has better distribution channels. If HP isn't going to contribute to product development, then sorry, Apple is getting the shyte end of the stick. I don't like moochers.

Ivana Trump. D12. Puerto Rico. Disney. And now Hewlett Packard.

 

[rainman::|:|]

I think we all know clones aren't going to happen in the near future, but this question wasn't about clones-- it was about HP branded Apple hardware, just like the iPod. HP doesn't make the damn things-- they just sell them, adding their logo in the process. So would Apple let HP brand the G5 PowerMac and distribute them? While I'm not sure it would be a bad idea, I don't think Apple would give up any prestige of their flagship pro model-- If there was a decent G5 laptop right now, I don't think it would be that big of a deal. Plus, the concept of rebranding (HP +Apple) confuses people, which Apple tries hard to avoid usually... On the iPod it can be a little more flexible, since they have so much exposure...

paul

 

[Blue Velvet]

...Ivana Trump. D12. Puerto Rico. Disney. And now Hewlett Packard.

That's some list.
It took me a few seconds to get your drift but she who laughs last...

 

[thatwendigo]

There are a lot of things that would have to be sorted out to make something like this happen, and maybe much more to make sure Apple comes out the winner on the deal. But to keep things simple, I would like to see what you MacRumors readers think would need to happen for this to be the best thing to happen to Apple.

What would need to be done to make it a good thing for Apple? Well, that's simple enough.

It should never, ever happen again. The cloners were one of the worst things to ever happen to our favorite computer company, and were probably the closest thing to outright death and dismemberment that ever faces the company. When you lose 34% of your profit but don't grow the overall marketshare at all, and you rely on hardware for some 80-90% of your revenues... That's a bad thing.

Like, would HP support the machines, not Apple? If a deal came to light of an HP branded PMG5, could HP push even further and convince Steve Jobs to release an x86-version of Mac OS X and sell it on already-produced HP x86 machines? This could push Microsoft's foot out of HP's door and HP can sell Mac OS X installed HP computers for the home computer market, and keep it's HP-Linux around for other markets. This list could go on and on...

Dear God, I hope not.

For reasons why, I could point at my older posts, but I think that quoting shamino could work just as well and be easier to find:

Many many many corporations have tried to displace Microsoft as the X86 operating system. Most with far better tech and packaging and everything else. They all failed. When was the last time you saw anyone using OS/2 or BeOS or Solaris/x86?

If Apple would give up the hardware and become a software-only company, they would be dead in under a year.

Customers would say "I'm not going to use it if I can't run all my PC apps". If Apple bundles in Windows support, customers will say "I'm only using it to run Windows apps, so why shouldn't I just run Windows."

This system would not be able to run PPC-based Mac apps, so developers will have to port all their apps. Most won't do it. They'll tell their customers to run the Windows version if they have PC hardware. They'll likely drop all support for their PPC-Mac apps as well.

If it starts to gain momentum, Microsoft will begin an all-out attack against it. Magazine pundits (paid off by MS) will say "don't use Mac OS - there aren't any applications for it".

This isn't idle speculation. This is exactly what happened to OS/2. Microsoft and IBM were jointly developing and shipping this system, and it was gaining popularity. Then Microsoft decided to drop it and IBM took over sole control. Microsoft canceled all their OS/2 application development (were you aware that they actually shipped Word and Excel for OS/2?) and started telling customers that it's useless because it can't run Windows office applications. When IBM shipped it with Windows compatibility, Microsoft quickly changed the Windows spec (and their own Windows apps) to break this compatibility mode - and convinced the media to report on this as if it was an IBM failure.

If Apple decides to go head-to-head with Microsoft for the PC OS market, I guarantee you that they'll get the exact same treatment.

Plus, they'll have hordes of disgruntled PPC users/developers that will decided to drop the platform altogether in disgust.

While it would be nice for Mac OS to be the One True System, it's never going to happen. The realities of the marketplace are such that the entire platform would die a switft death if Apple would ever try it. The marketplace is littered with the remains of others who tried and failed. The only reason Linux isn't dead is that there's no single corporation that can be put out of business to kill it.​

 

[Zaty]

The only reason Linux isn't dead is that there's no single corporation that can be put out of business to kill it.[/indent]

Excellent point, that's why MS is so afraid of Linux!

 

[thatwendigo]

Excellent point, that's why MS is so afraid of Linux!

It's shamino's text I'm using, but he and I are basically saying the same things about the situation. Credit where credit is due, since I lifted his words instead of retyping my thoughts of digging them out again.

 

[imaswitcheryeah]

Awesome, everyone's making great points, good and bad.

But that's what would need to be discussed to make this work for the best. My opinion on the subject is that HP would be best for Apple if it helped it in the distro department, like the situation with the iPod. But when you really look at it, it really would be hard to make the same thing happen with the Macs themselves. There so much more attached to the Macs than the iPods. The Macs are what made Apple what it is and what we all love, and the iPod is this new product that Apple has produced that is really repeating the love and loyalty that the Mac originally did. It's also a Mac and PC compatible device that is really showing the Windows world of computer users that Apple really makes high-quality goods. The iPod is expensive in most people's eyes but they know that they are really getting what they pay for, so they save up because they want something that is really gonna work great and be easy to use in their everyday life. Then they may realize that maybe they should lose all the hassle of their Windows boxes and see that a $1,299 iMac G5 is a much better value than a $599 Dell.

This might be something that HP could ruin, especially if there was an x86 OS X. I agree totally with Stoid and Brother Michael that this shouldn't happen. The integration is definitely the major point on why they shouldn't.

 

[iSuck]

STOP STOP STOP!!!!!! x86 VERSIONS OF OS X WILL NEVER HAPPEN!!!!!

Mike

Lol..ahahahhah

But, think, ok if Hp or IBM were to make macs, it would turn many pc users into liking macs and maybe even buying them.

Half of my friends hate apple so they wouldn't buy the iPod, HP + Apple iPod was released, NO DIFFERENCE MIND YOU, and 2 of my mates went out and bought one claiming their hp iPod was better than my 4th Gen Apple iPod.

So yeah, HP + Apple G5, it might help macs sales

 

[Brother Michael]

Lol..ahahahhah

But, think, ok if Hp or IBM were to make macs, it would turn many pc users into liking macs and maybe even buying them.

Half of my friends hate apple so they wouldn't buy the iPod, HP + Apple iPod was released, NO DIFFERENCE MIND YOU, and 2 of my mates went out and bought one claiming their hp iPod was better than my 4th Gen Apple iPod.

So yeah, HP + Apple G5, it might help macs sales

L0L!!!11one

That is terrific enough that it merited leet speak. It is funny as that is the exact market that I am sure Apple was looking to go after with the HP deal. The people that hate Mac so much that they will only buy and iProduct if it has a PC vendor name on it.

Mike

 

[slughead]

I assure you HP will use 64 bit Athlons before they'll make Apples.

Though it would be interesting to have Apple clones which are really Apple parts with a HP case.

 

[Timelessblur]

I would like to point out if apple want s to have any real gains in market share they are going to have to contract out of others to make there computers.

Look at it right now apple is having supply problems left and right. Delays left and right. People pretty much accepted these delays and say it is ok. As it stands unless apple gets is self in order it going to have to fix it supply problems and it becoming crystal clear that apple lack the manfaciering power to produce the computers all internally.

 

[stoid]

As it stands unless apple gets is self in order it going to have to fix it supply problems and it becoming crystal clear that apple lack the manfaciering power to produce the computers all internally.

Apple's biggest problems right now are completely external. G5's are in short supply because IBM can't make enough procs. The 30 inch monitor debacle is because nVidia can't seem to get their production of the 6800 under control. The iPod mini has been in short supply because Hitaschi can't make the HDs fast enough. HP only lets Apple reach new markets, and right now, Apple is have trouble supplying the market that they have.

 

[Jo-Kun]

HP's 23" TFT and the Apple 23" HD CinemaDisplay share a lot of the same hardware, only the look and some options differ from one to another (and the pricing... HP's monitor is mostly 500 euro's cheaper than Apple's) off course the Apple Display remains the beauty in the long run...

J

 

[Nermal]

If Mac OS X started working on x86 Apple would have to support hundreds or thousands of new configurations. Furthermore, even though it's being proved more and more now that Apple computers are not more expensive than WinTel boxes, Apple doesn't make cheap computers, and so when 'the masses' see that they can use a superior OS on their bargain box, all companies that make quality hardware lose.

No! No! No!

If Apple were to release an x86 version of OS X, it would still rely on custom boot ROMs or similar, in order to only work on Macs. These Macs would of course have x86 processors, but they would still be Macs. It wouldn't be possible to run x86 OS X on a 'generic' PC.

 

[toughboy]

Lol..ahahahhah

But, think, ok if Hp or IBM were to make macs, it would turn many pc users into liking macs and maybe even buying them.

Half of my friends hate apple so they wouldn't buy the iPod, HP + Apple iPod was released, NO DIFFERENCE MIND YOU, and 2 of my mates went out and bought one claiming their hp iPod was better than my 4th Gen Apple iPod.

So yeah, HP + Apple G5, it might help macs sales

apple doesnt need those idiots.. I wouldnt want to have a friend with that kind of sarcastic stupidness... let them drown in MS sh*t, they dont even deserve OSX besides Mac..

 

[adiliegro]

Jesus...I just get away from HP and Windows machines and now I see they want in on my NEW favorite computer system? When I think HP in of HP, I think of Packard Bell and Compaq and when I think of Packard Bell and Compaq, I think of CRAP!

Please dont let HP in the loop here...It's like Im in HP hell!