Could this move away from DRM, and Apple's lack of concern of losing iPod sales indicate Apple may license Mac OS X for generic PC hardware? Could this be why Leopard is taking so long?... Have to make drivers for PC hardware?
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.
Could DRM-free Music indicate Mac OS X for PCs???
- Thread starter MacVault
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
It's a bit of a jump from getting record labels to drop DRM to licensing the OS that generates massive revenue via hardware sales
I'm not sure I see the connection at all. The DRM system already exists on Windows in the form of iTunes and Quicktime for Windows. How does dropping the DRM facilitate, suggest, etc, Apple's move to OS X on Windows? Are you inferring that Apple will drop the protection / management scheme on OS X that prevents it from running on non-Apple hardware? Because EMI asked them to sell songs without DRM?
Drum Roll please....
The connection is simple...
Apple is not concerned about declining sales of iPods now that they've told DRM to go to hell - the DRM that locks the songs to play only on an iPod (or computer).
So... Why would they be concerned about declining sales of Mac hardware if they were to tell the hardware lockin in Mac OS X to go to hell..??
Because iPod sales might end up rollercoastering. Sales of Apple computers would go into the toilet.
Why, if Microsoft can make buttloads more $$$ than Apple on software alone, would Apple be worried about losing a few Mac sales to have the chance of also making buttloads of $$$$ - which should outweigh the loss in their hardware sales?.?.?
I don't think that people buying iPods has as much to do with DRM as the ability of iTunes to sync with iPods. If iTunes synced with other players then Apple might see a drop in sales.
But not so simple. AAC/MP3 is totally different from an OS. If there was never any pressure by any of the EU bureaus I would guarantee you there would still be DRM 10 years from now. The only way Apple would make it's OS available to other manufacturers is if legally they were forced to. Then that goes to say even if that did happen who says they would have to write drivers for every graphics card, mobo, etc...? More of a sure, we'll open up, but we'll only support this subset. Stuff like this is a very slippery slope. Look at all the hassle Windows users go through because some things just DON'T work.
Damnit, does this dead horse REALLY need to be flogged again?
1) Because Microsoft is WAY out ahead of Mac OS X. Just how much do you think Apple would have to charge for OS X to make up for the loss of hardware sales? $300? $400? $500? Do you think people would really want to spend that cash on OS X to put on their PCs, when they could just stick with the known quantity of XP/Vista?
2) Because Apple currently controls the hardware that OS X is installed on. If they didn't, the current bloat that OS X has would increase near exponentially overnight. XP and Vista are seriously bloated, and that is because Microsoft tries very hard to make their OS able to be installed on just about anything.
3)
maybe naive, but thats exactly what I imagine for the future of OSX. Linux's eye candy will surpass other OSes soon, and it can actually runs on just (little bit less than windows) about anything. OSX needs to make strategic bold move soon.
No.
The reason Apple's stuff works so flawlessly is because they have control over the hardware and the software. If they were to release OS X for any hardware, they'd get masses of stupid users complaining that something doesn't work because there's no driver for it, or because they forgot to install some bit of hardware, or 'whats BIOS?'.
Currently, I can grab my iBook, take it to an applecenter and have it repaired. For this to happen for any old hardware, the technicians would have to go through a lot more training, they'd have to have a stack of manuals for every type of hardware in existance, sometimes they might not be able to fix it, etc.
Again, No.
The reason Apple's stuff works so flawlessly is because they have control over the hardware and the software. If they were to release OS X for any hardware, they'd get masses of stupid users complaining that something doesn't work because there's no driver for it, or because they forgot to install some bit of hardware, or 'whats BIOS?'.
Currently, I can grab my iBook, take it to an applecenter and have it repaired. For this to happen for any old hardware, the technicians would have to go through a lot more training, they'd have to have a stack of manuals for every type of hardware in existance, sometimes they might not be able to fix it, etc.
Again, No.
There's more to life than Eye Candy. Until the Linux camp has one distro become "THE" distro, the fragmentation of Linux fiefdoms will be it's barrier into mainstreaming the OS. That and non-computer-literate end users need to be protected from the quixotic UNIX-like underbelly at every turn. Pretty much, Linux needs to take some pages from the Mac OS X camp.
Well, instead of "One Linux Distro to conquer them all" all we have on the market today is Windows Vista. I hope it remains as useless as it is now for a long while, so that more people realise it's a ripoff and switch to Mac and Linux camps.
It doesn't matter that much if people choose Mac or a specific variety of Linux, all that matters is that more people will be pushing their friends to use industry standards instead of MS products. In the end, even MS development will improve as they'll spend more time on their products instead of sabotaging backward-compatibility between their own releases. I wish Linux and OS X gained some >5% global market share each.
Apple sells systems
Apple doesn't sell computers. Apple also doesn't sell operating systems.
They sell computer systems. Just like in the old days of Amiga, Atari, etc. They make the whole computer, not only part of it.
You won't see Mac OS X for PCs any more than you will see Metroid for non-Nintendo systems. That is, you'll never see that happen unless they don't make their own system/platform anymore.
Apple doesn't sell computers. Apple also doesn't sell operating systems.
They sell computer systems. Just like in the old days of Amiga, Atari, etc. They make the whole computer, not only part of it.
You won't see Mac OS X for PCs any more than you will see Metroid for non-Nintendo systems. That is, you'll never see that happen unless they don't make their own system/platform anymore.
It's not going to happen for at least as long as Jobs is leading Apple. Remember the quote from Alan Kay he used at MWSF this year?
"People who are really serious about software should make their own hardware."
"People who are really serious about software should make their own hardware."
There's more to life than Eye Candy. Until the Linux camp has one distro become "THE" distro, the fragmentation of Linux fiefdoms will be it's barrier into mainstreaming the OS. That and non-computer-literate end users need to be protected from the quixotic UNIX-like underbelly at every turn. Pretty much, Linux needs to take some pages from the Mac OS X camp.
Understand your question, but u know what, as I have been following the linux for past several years, briefly, Ubuntu is emerging to be "THE ONE".
and as I can tell, Eye Candy is at least a large (I say 30%, for me personally, its 40%, 50% goto stability, 10% goes to hardware design) portion of OSX's attraction for many windows users who would like to try OSX. (At this stage, I don't really think many windows users really care about Virus and security anymore, since everybody can get a free AV, and windows does run pretty stable.)
I honestly think its PR, if apple ever to free up OSX, he will give us another quote like "PPl who are really seriously about computers should free their OSes and cooperate with the whole hardware industry".
Yes, and this is too bad - at least for the user/customer. And it's not because I don't like their hardware. There is a lot about Apple's hardware I love. However.. the hardware configurations Apple executives decide will do well for their business plan and their profits does NOT always do well for me as their customer. For example, I #1) want to be a Mac OS X user and #2) use Mac OS X on a <$1000 Bring Your Own Keyboard, Monitor, Mouse tower machine. I think you get the point.... Currently I am at Apple's mercy as far as hardware configurations and price. And this single issue really detracts from Mac OS X's apeal and sexiness.
Let me say that from a user's perspective... Users who are really serious about their software (OS) **NEED** flexibility in hardware configurations and price.
Seems like Apple is the type of company who could come up with an ingenious way to do away with hardware drivers altogether.
And all that customizeability is more then available in the Mac Pro. However, not every user needs a Mac Pro, thats why there is a wide selection of iMacs and Mac Mini's available. These systems lack somewhat in customizeability, but if you are serious about your OS and software, why look at any option below the top of the line?
OMG!...
1) MacPro is way too expensive.
2) MacMini has no room for drives, etc and is overpriced for what it is.
3) I do not want an all-in-one, as in the iMac.
4) There's a huge gap between the MacMini and the MacPro - in more ways than one.
The inability to run Mac OS X on a sub-$1000 tower/minitower machine is a huge drawback to the operating system. It is crippled. No two ways about it.
This is a non sequitur...what does DRM-free music have to do with licensing their OS? It's not even the same company. EMI is licensing the music without DRM, and you're talking about Apple licensing their OS.
