I was just wondering.. due to the reason that not apple makes most of its money on software, why doesnt apple make an os similar to osx, easy to use without crashing etc, for the pc. And if they made it where it could run windows os that would be even better. I think it would be a hit and eventually lead to more mac users, and would be very profitable.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
apple make a pc os
- Thread starter jer446
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
probably because people would buy cheap pcs and puts this OS on it, and they would have a decent machine for way less than any macjer446 said:
.edit: along those lines, they would have to include a ridiculous amount of drivers as compared to what they have now, because all they have to cover are their hardware.
There was a rumor of something like this going around a few years ago. I can't remember what the OS was called, but I heard that Apple was developing a version of OS X that would run on x86 machines. I heard that Apple would release it if Microsoft ever stoped development of MS Office for the Mac.
No idea if any of the rumors were true, but I think it'd be pretty sweet.
No idea if any of the rumors were true, but I think it'd be pretty sweet.
Well one of the main reasons people buy slower and more expensive Apple hardware is because they are getting OS X. If they do release it for x86 machines, we can say goodbye to any future switchers as well as many current users.
cheers
cheers
and lets not forget that apple makes most of its money off of the hardware sales not the software sales, so it defeats the idea that the original poster had, the amount of money apple makes off of the software is nothing compared to what they get from hardware sales, the software is there to get you to want to buy that expensive hardware
jer446 said:
no way is it software
most of the money is from iPod right now --- thats hardware
you need the hardware to run the software
not to many people buy final cut pro/express as they are 299 - 999 respectiviely (i maybe quoting old prices and canadian prices) -- but more people will buy an iMac for 2000 grand and run iLife -- which is like 50$ -- so it's easily hardware
pretty sure it's hardware
also apple would hit the same problem MS has with it OS. It has to be able to play nice with almost any system config out there. Apple would have 0 control over the sytem configuration
jer446 said:
well, most of apple's software is free or relatively low cost, and development costs are high.
The hardware on the other hand has always had 25-30% margins. That's a lot of money, even on things like iMacs and eMacs when you add up how many are sold.
Apple makes essentially ALL of its money on hardware. the software is just a way to drive hardware sales.
One of the reasons why OS X runs so well, is because of the hardware-software combined design. That of course is not the only reason why it is so stable, but instead of worrying about all those drivers, they have like 10-12 main computers to worry about. What I am trying to say is that if Apple released Panther to the x86 world, It wouldn't be near as stable. At least in its present form. Plus people would steal copywrited material and they have no money to work with. Keeping everything "closed" makes sure they stay in business.
kyle
kyle
If Apple made an OS for the PC it would most likely be $299-$399 for the OS and $199-$299 for the upgrades... probably on the upper end because Apple would probably be including iLife.
Apple would have to redo their entire OS strategy to make more money off the OS than they do now... because a cheap OS and cheap PC would kill current Apple HW sales.
The clone fiasco killed Apple because it stole sales away from current Mac buyers and didn't entice PC users to switch. Which was the point of the clones in the first place, to make Mac cheap enough to get PC user to switch.
The clones got Apple users to switch to clones instead, while generating few -- if any -- sales to PC users.
Sales of the Mac OS X86 would basically do the same thing, it would erode Apple HW sales -- since the choice between an expensive Mac of cheap PC would be easy one to make for current Mac users.
This would erode Mac sales to the point that they become a burden and threaten to kill Apple.
Apple would have to redo their entire OS strategy to make more money off the OS than they do now... because a cheap OS and cheap PC would kill current Apple HW sales.
The clone fiasco killed Apple because it stole sales away from current Mac buyers and didn't entice PC users to switch. Which was the point of the clones in the first place, to make Mac cheap enough to get PC user to switch.
The clones got Apple users to switch to clones instead, while generating few -- if any -- sales to PC users.
Sales of the Mac OS X86 would basically do the same thing, it would erode Apple HW sales -- since the choice between an expensive Mac of cheap PC would be easy one to make for current Mac users.
This would erode Mac sales to the point that they become a burden and threaten to kill Apple.
Norouzi said:
It wasn't over MS Office, it was more based around fears of having to jump from power pc processors to x86 processors and having an avenue to go down if that cam about.
I'm glad to see so many people defending (with great insight) Apple's decision here. Especially since Apple made a similar decision during the mid-'80s and many people considered it a bad move then.
Duff-Man says....I think the whole "OS X on Intel" thing has been done to death 1000 times over in countless threads on every Mac message board.....oh yeah!
Norouzi said:
It was called Marklar(sp?)... I believe it was a pre-release of 10.1 or 10.2. If you google it im sure you will find some info on it.
I may be way off here, but I think part of the ease of use and stability of the mac experience and OSX, is that apple have control over the hardware that goes into their machines, and every step of the building process.
If they were to make a pc compatible OS there would be the issue of hundreds of combinations of hardware which may bring up all sorts of problems like it does with windows based machines currently, which would be out of the control of apple.
But would be blamed on the OS.
If they were to make a pc compatible OS there would be the issue of hundreds of combinations of hardware which may bring up all sorts of problems like it does with windows based machines currently, which would be out of the control of apple.
But would be blamed on the OS.
why would apple want to do that ?
I for one am happy whith apples market share, that is one of the reasons we don't get the virus programers attention.
If apple was to become as popular as PeeCees we would then have to start dealing with viruses.
I don't want the world to run on MAC... I'm happy being a part of a small comunity.
AWAY WITH THE MASSES !!!
What would be "different" about apple if everybody had one ?
I for one am happy whith apples market share, that is one of the reasons we don't get the virus programers attention.
If apple was to become as popular as PeeCees we would then have to start dealing with viruses.
I don't want the world to run on MAC... I'm happy being a part of a small comunity.
AWAY WITH THE MASSES !!!
What would be "different" about apple if everybody had one ?
Apple made an x86 port of Darwin a while back. I have a CD of it, but never really tried it.
Darwin x86
As for the possibility of an x86 port of OS X, that dead horse has been beaten too many times to count.
Darwin x86
As for the possibility of an x86 port of OS X, that dead horse has been beaten too many times to count.
