Dell Says He'd Sell Apple's Mac OS

[Stella]

Dell rumours is great :-D

Loved the bit a few months ago with the Dell iPods clones..

"Now we want to try selling a few"!

LOL

Seems like you're on the wrong forums. Maybe you should go home, again...

 

[Les Kern]

It's going to happen, it's all just a matter of time.

I agree there. To paraphrase a popular utterance... "It's the OS, stupid!".
Now don't get me wrong. I love the Mac design efforts. Second to none. But if we want to show the world that OS X is the answer, we have to get it on more machines. And who makes the most machines? Why Dell. Of course I'd never buy one of those smiley-faced abominations, but quite a few folks think "Dell" means "Computer". I really believe that in about 5 years the Apple OS will be king, and Longhorn will be legacy crap, like OS2 Warp or even SuperPaint.
All the cards are falling into place my OS X-using brothers and sisters!

 

[Les Kern]

That Dell is friggin' ugly as sin. I was flabbergasted when I saw it.

Trying to be "futuristic", but merely piling on extreneous crap. Looks like a set design for the movie "Starship Troopers". They haven't a clue.

 

[Les Kern]

I tend to think the will care. Even if they don't know how to use Word, Excel or Powerpoint, they will be a tough sell without Microsoft Office. People talk about Steve's Kool-Aid. Microsoft Office has everybody by the balls

Only ONE ball. It will take some time, but Apple WILL come up with a REAL alternative to Office. When they do I'm there. Pages and the rumored Numbers is a start. Imagine a Mac shipping on a Dell with iLife and an Office-like product? Be like the iPod phenomenon.

 

[1macker1]

THis would be great. Why not, Apple has moved to Intel, but I dont think this will help market share. But If Dell, a brand people know and trust starts selling PCs with OS X, I think marketshare would skyrocket. But on the down side, this would kill off Apple's hardware division, and might drive them outta business. But in all in all, there isn't any thing really different about Apple since they moved to Intel. It's not like Apple has 'special' hardware. If u take your Mac apart, you'll see that they use all the same parts that make it a computer that Dell uses. It's just put in a pretty case.

 

[GeeYouEye]

Warning: This is a bit long

As someone, Paul Graham I think it was, pointed out, selling Operating Systems is a losing business plan, because anything you can come up with, someone else will replicate and release for free. Any future features you announce will be made faster, better, and again, free. That's simply the nature of the business. Everyone, even Microsoft, realizes this, though for some, that realization is from the proprietary side, and from the open-source side for others.

What is potentially profitable is hardware. Hardware will ALWAYS be profitable, if you have the right business and distribution model. Only Dell and Apple are successful at this. What does that make them? Competitors. Fortunately, due to the differences in their business plans (Toyota* vs. BMW) they are not direct competitors.

*some may wonder about the comparison of Toyota to Dell; I chose Toyota, rather than, say, Honda, Kia, Hyundai, or Daewoo because of their amazing assembly capabilities and efficient busness plans, not based on a quality comparison. Toyota makes great cars. Dell does not make great computers.

The one thing I've left out of this whole thing is Applications. Now THERE'S a place in the software world where real innovation can happen for profit. It's much harder to replicate a killer app than it is to replicate an OS. MS Office is actually somewhat decent in its latest Windows incarnation, and great on the Mac (admittedly, they had a few missteps... Word 6, for example). OpenOffice.org simply isn't everything Office is. There, I've said it, and just made myself a target for every OSS zealot out there. Same thing with PhotoShop vs. the GIMP. GIMP is great for basic image manipulation, but for CMYK, or RAW control, batching, and a standard interface, there simply is no replacement for Photoshop. As a result, it's incredibly popular and incredibly profitable. (I'm leaving out applications integrated into the OS, such as IE, especially since Mozilla is practically a given on Linux platforms)

So where does that leave Apple re: MS and re: Dell? Start by MS re: Windows and Office? MS is trying its darnedest to sell an OS, which in the long term cannot possibly pay off. Still, right now, it's a nice stream to milk for all it's worth, and so they will fight to keep Windows alive as long as they can (see Longhorn). That said, Windows exists to sell Office, which is still much more profitable for them (backwards compatability with all .exe's is millions of man-hours of work, vs. a few hundred for all previous .doc, .xls, .ppt, etc). If Windows' marketshare ever crashed, you can bet your hiney that MS would release a Linux version of Office, to keep their most profitable line of software.

So where's Apple in this? Apple, instead of selling OS to sell software, as Microsoft does, sells OS to sell hardware and software. A perfectly valid approach, barring the Linux problem. And make no mistake, Linux, or another OSS OS is eventually going to be on EVERY desktop. It's just a question of how much time and misery the computing world goes through with TCPA/NGSCB first. But Apple, one step ahead of everyone as usual, cuts that off by opening the core OS, Darwin, and, more importantly CoreFoundation. Which can, and does, run on just about every piece of hardware out there, as long as it has a driver for it. By doing this, Apple effectively created a logical partition in between OS technologies and Application technologies inside of what we typically think of as the OS iteslf! This sets Apple's Darwin up to be the next Linux, a great position to be in under any circumstances. Then, you can pay $129 for the Applications and application technologies that run on top of Darwin: Cocoa, Carbon, QuickTime, iChat, WebObjects, Quartz, Aqua, Finder, Spotlight, Dashboard, iLife, Sherlock, Mail... the Apple Crown Jewels (well, maybe not the Finder ). But, as with any great software package, there's system requirements... the most important of which is "An Apple Macintosh computer". They are using the Crown Jewels to sell the premium-priced hardware. Now THIS is an absolutely rock-solid, future-proof business plan (provided they can get the best hardware to run those jewels, hence the Intel switch**), one that leaves absolutely no room for Michael Dell. The most Apple would likely ever do is another rebranding gig if they ever need more manufacturing and distribution capacity, or someone can offer extremely sweet licensing terms, a la HP, whose computers have iTunes installed by default.

**For the record, I think the Intel switch makes business sense for reasons outlined above, but is still a terrible, terrible thing to do architecture-wise, and is going to be much more of a pain for users and developers unless they are willing to speed up Rosetta (currently translates to 800 MHz G3, not coincidentally the fastest G3 desktop computer Apple ever shipped, for technical reasons) and give Classic support a higher priority than "very low". If Apple survives the to-be-painful transition period, and I wouldn't completely confident they will, given how their marketshare decreases with every transition (to say nothing of the apparently aborted transition to 64-bitness), they will thrive in the long term. Apple does, however, have one last ace up it's sleeve, which is probably the one for the next two years: free (as in beer) Cocoa, QTKit, EOF, WebObjects, and WebKit.

First, a bit of background: Cocoa was the Hope Diamond of NeXT, even before it was called Cocoa (I think that's an Apple term actually). A set of Objective-C frameworks written to be architecture independent, with a ton of built-in functionality and an incredible interface builder (called Interface Builder, of course). Way back when, NeXT charged for the use of Cocoa (well, OpenStep anyway), and it's web-oriented cousins EnterpriseObjects and WebObjects. NeXT charged A LOT. When Apple bought NeXT, Apple charged A LOT for the developer version of WebObjects ($50,000 plus deployment license costs), and hid away Cocoa until OS X. With OS X comes the return of Cocoa, now free for anyone to use if they installed the free Dev tools. WO was reduced to $699. Jump forward to now, with Xcode 2.1 and WO 5.3, all of that is free with the free developer tools! Anyone with a Mac can potentially become a Mac developer at no extra charge, whether their target is the desktop or the web! ANYONE! This is HUGE. MS only started doing this recently with .NET, but the IDE and compiler is still $600 or so to a "normal" (not corporate or education, which actually excludes quite a lot) customer. This means that the potential percent of Mac developers is much higher (100% of those running OS X; 16% and growing daily for WO, though Apple did give away rotating trial licenses for WO 5.2 under Panther and Jaguar, so really more like 84%) than the potential percent of Windows developers. This, I think, is what will get Apple through the next two years: new programmers, seeing just how easy it is to get started developing on a Mac, will start developing, especially with the introduction of Core Data and QTKit which make it so easy to do great things. The number and quality of new Apps will make Apple and the Mac platform survive through the next two tough years to the bright future ahead.

Well, that went on a lot longer than I wanted it to, and covered some thoughts completely off topic. For those wanting the most concise sumarry possible: Dell making Macs can never happen. Intel switch a necessary evil. Yay Dev Tools and Cocoa frameworks!

 

[thejadedmonkey]

Apple Certified

Why not make a breed of Dell's that are apple certified, and OS X for x86 can be installed on them, but the user needs to buy OS X from apple or something. Assuming people don't pirate it, it's a good idea. but now im thinking, and probably not. but apple wouldl still get the 200 for OS x and iLife

 

[shazammy]

Why not make a breed of Dell's that are apple certified, and OS X for x86 can be installed on them, but the user needs to buy OS X from apple or something. Assuming people don't pirate it, it's a good idea. but now im thinking, and probably not.

A) Never assume. Of course people would pirate it if they could.

B) Apple certified Dells? Don't make me puke, I just had breakfast.

 

[amac4me]

Interesting Followup article -- Dell could sue to sell OS X

Check this article out

A few quotes:

"Principal analyst with Insight 64, Nathan Brookwood, said it was only a matter of time before someone in the PC industry sues Apple for "tying" its operating system to a specific type of hardware available only from Apple."

"If you sell software that can run on hardware that you do make and hardware that you don't make, you can not require people to buy your hardware to run your software"

"If Dell really wanted to sell Mac OS X hardware, it could force the issue through the legal system"

http://www.pcworld.idg.com.au/index.php/id;1711947473;fp;2;fpid;1

 

[bigandy]

Not every PC uses cares about the hardware - just as long as it runs their software and does what they want it to do. You know - Dell machines does this fine for a lot of PC owners - at a cheap price.

but for others.... the company i'm working for right now recently took a delivery of 400 OptiPlex and Prescision workstations... and almost 50 were faulty or dead on delivery, and 30 had severe instabilities from the start.

not really suprising that they are re-evaluating that descision - possibly to powermacs! YAAAY!

 

[mfethers]

It's very simple. Apple will broadly license it's operating system to a company like Dell or HP only when it's no longer profitable to be a computer hardware company. Eventually, computers will be so cheap that they're not worth Apple's trouble. It's coming. When even Apple can make a $500 computer, the profit margin is going to shrink; someday you'll get a computer with a bottle of Pepsi, instead of a song. Ipods profit will decline, too, but they're on the start of that descent, not the end.

Apple has clearly set itself up for that possibilty with the Intel switch and hardware independant platform, so it will be a matter of timing. Apple will open Mac OSXII (or whatever) and become a software provider; it's main hardware will be the descendants of the iPod, home theatres, hollographic communicators, whatever.

But not a second before.

 

[MontyZ]

I'm sorry but Apple didn't sink hundreds of millions into retail stores so they could sell iPods and software and let Dell cannibalize their hardware sales. If Apple hardware became a generic commodity item, their retail business would be ruined, to say nothing of the challenge of developing software for hardware products slightly out of their control.

That's a very good point some people are forgetting. Apple has invested heavily into these retail outlets, and it's NOT so they can just sell more software, it's to sell their computers and iPods. Apple is not giving up on the hardware side of their business as some people are suggesting. The Intel switch is being done so they can sell MORE hardware at a faster rate, and keep up with the speed race.

 

[topicolo]

It's going to happen, it's all just a matter of time.

It might not be soon, but there will be a day when you can walz in to Best Buy and buy Mac OS (enter version here), go home, and install it on the PC you already own.

I think it's great, I don't know what all the 'heart break' is about.

Apple is in the business of making money; they're not in the business of being a 'be different, rebel, don't conform' cult.

They will ALWAYS produce top-notch stuff. But their goal is just the same as any company: distrubute that top-notch stuff to as many customers as possible.

I honestly do think there will be a day when Apple will take over the computer industry, and Mac OS will be on the majority of user-computers, in the work-places etc. Mac OS is the future of computers. All in good time

The last time Apple tried doing something similar was with the licensing of the MacOS to clone makers. Apple lost a lot of money because consumers chose the cheaper and much faster clones over Apple's offerings. The money Apple lost in hardware sales was far greater than the licensing fees Apple got in return and I don't see Apple taking the risk and doing this again.

 

[BenRoethig]

And who is telling you to buy a 30 lb black bland box?? You would buy a mac mini with OS X.. someone else would buy a 30 lb black bland box with OS X.. geez!

I think you hit the nail right on the head there.

Apple
Form over function
Niche/Premium Market

Dell
Function over form
Mainstream market

OSX vs Windows: They do the same exact thing. OSX just does it better.

 

[BenRoethig]

The last time Apple tried doing something similar was with the licensing of the MacOS to clone makers. Apple lost a lot of money because consumers chose the cheaper and much faster clones over Apple's offerings. The money Apple lost in hardware sales was far greater than the licensing fees Apple got in return and I don't see Apple taking the risk and doing this again.

There were three major differences.
1. Apple and the clones were releasing the same kind of stuff. The clones just plain did it better. Take the Apple off the 9600 tower and you couldn't tell it from a PC. It'd take less than a second to differentiate between a modern Dell and a iMac. If the clones didn't happen, Apple would be in a much worse position because they'd still be offering run of the mill underspeced crap.

2. Apple didn't have the name recognition that they do now. No ipod, iApps, or iTunes. The Claris subsidiary was the only redeeming part of Apple back them.

3. Apple sold licenses upstarts while telling known companies with an actual marketing budget to take a hike. They ended up just marketing clones to the existing user base, which was not exactly impressed with what Apple was offering anyway. Apple didn't have the leadership at the top it does now.

 

[hulugu]

Apple is in the business of making money; they're not in the business of being a 'be different, rebel, don't conform' cult.

But, that's one of the things I liked about Apple. IBM and Microsoft have been able to make gobs of money making computers, but they haven't been a driving force for revolution, Apple has. It's the smallness, that leaness of company and corporate spirit that has made Apple so cool for all these years.

I honestly do think there will be a day when Apple will take over the computer industry, and Mac OS will be on the majority of user-computers, in the work-places etc. Mac OS is the future of computers. All in good time

I would love for Apple to be the dominate player if that means they can also create a revolution every few years—no other company has made as many platform changes, introduced as many new technologies as fast, as Apple. But, a fat healthy dominant Apple begins to look a lot like IBM circa in the 80's, a fat dumb target nibbled away by smaller faster predators.

It might not be soon, but there will be a day when you can walz in to Best Buy and buy Mac OS (enter version here), go home, and install it on the PC you already own.

This is such a strange particularity about computers, you would never expect a Chevy engine to fit into your Honda without at least some major retrofitting, but when it's a computer all of the sudden everything should work with everything. And why doesn't it, actually?
I think a more likely effect would be the creation of fat binaries and standardized components that don't depend on Windows drivers. If Apple (and Linux) continues to whittle away (think pocket knife versus Redwood, but that will change too) at Windows than developers are going to learn how to make everything work with everything, we may actually see specialized OSs that work in particular with someone's needs or OSs that are totally platform agnostic. That's what I want, I want revolution, I want 'don't conform cultishness' because that's how things change, someone says 'this system is flawed' and then breaks it by creating a better, faster version. We don't want stagnation. Woz may be right in the end if Apple just becomes Microsoft.

 

[iDrinkKoolAid]

There were three major differences.
1. Apple and the clones were releasing the same kind of stuff. The clones just plain did it better. Take the Apple off the 9600 tower and you couldn't tell it from a PC. It'd take less than a second to differentiate between a modern Dell and a iMac. If the clones didn't happen, Apple would be in a much worse position because they'd still be offering run of the mill underspeced crap.

2. Apple didn't have the name recognition that they do now. No ipod, iApps, or iTunes. The Claris subsidiary was the only redeeming part of Apple back them.

3. Apple sold licenses upstarts while telling known companies with an actual marketing budget to take a hike. They ended up just marketing clones to the existing user base, which was not exactly impressed with what Apple was offering anyway. Apple didn't have the leadership at the top it does now.

I second that. Apple sucked back then, when it had a new clueless CEO every month who would raise prices and lower the quality. Aside from the Mac diehards (like me and my friends) no one cared about buying a Power Computing or a Motorola Starmax Mac clone.

Change is sometimes good and necessary people. Let's not be myopic. Do we Mac users not want to recapture at least the 10% market share we used to enjoy? I don't think it's a bad thing to get the good Mac word out to the WinDoze lemmings. With the appropriate CEO at the helm, we should have more faith in the RDF.

I wonder where Apple would have been if Steve Jobs had never been fired in '85?

 

[ART5000]

APPLE IS A DIRECT THREAT TO DELL

I haven't read the full thread on this topic. But i have to say if anyone wrote about the fact that Dell's move is a strategic defensive one, they would be right on target.

Example, when Apple comes out with a very reasonably priced system, yes, i know about the mac mini, but lets take the towers, that is comparable to Dell in price and allows windows to be installable on macs, Apple will have a system that will grab a lot of Dell customers.

So if I were Michael Dell i would try to persuade Steve to license osx to pc users or Dell.

APPLE HAS BECOME A DIRECT THREAT TO DELL, for the reasons, above, including that it will have a processor that is branded so tightly in minds of pc users that those same pcs users will come over to apple, as in purchase a competitive apple tower or mini or what ever apple puts out that works well for pc users.

I say to Steve hold on to OSx just for macs. And win some market share from pc manufacturers.

 

[sacear]

Sculley, not Jobs, gave away the farm (the OS)

Steve's problem was he never copyrighted the OS he created. Microsoft took it and there was nothing he could do besides piss and moan.

jon

If you are referring to Mac System OS prior to OS X, then yes MS copied it, but it was John Sculley who effectively gave the OS away to MS. MS sneakily tricked Sculley into signing a very vague and suspiciously worded agreement that allowed MS to emulate and use the Mac OS. Steve had nothing to do with that, he was not at Apple at that time.

 

[dejo]

Steve's problem was he never copyrighted the OS he created. Microsoft took it and there was nothing he could do besides piss and moan.

Actually, Apple did copyright the OS and did more than just piss and moan about Microsoft. They sued them. It was the center of the infamous "look-and-feel" case, which Apple eventually lost. Read all about it here.

 

[pcdoctor]

Two words Wall Street....

For example,, about 6 weeks ago, a superintendent of schools in Georgia went out on a limb and order 1,600 iBooks. Then Jobs does his Intel switch. Would you spend taxpayers money on "old and busted" iBooks or would you want "new and improved"... Then along comes Dell and says we will put OSX in our laptops today...

If you were that superintendent what would you WANT for your taxpayers money.

If Jobs says no, that super would kill that order fast...

And then there is what Wall Street would say to Jobs losing big orders....

Well, this school system in GA would have saved 4+ million dollars if they had purchased Dell laptops. No one even asked the Cobb tax payers for their opinions. By the way, an ex GA governor (Roy Barnes) is suing the superintendent and the school board because they used the 25 million illegally to purchase these ibooks.

 

[infinite_loon]

Damn, all you people are funny!

This would probablly be one of the greatest things to happen for OS X ever!

Funny?

What's funny is that whilst this may well benefit Mac OS X because it's potential target market increases a million-fold it would be the single most suicidal move for Apple Computer.

Apple sells hardware. Without hardware sales, Apple would disintegrate. It's amazing how quickly everyone has forgotten Gil Amelio's licensing program that practically killed Apple.

The mentality of most PC users is to get the most powerful computer for the cheapest cash. A large % of Apple consumers may never switch to a PC but businesses offered the chance to buy a Dell or similar generic PC with Mac OS X on would do so because businesses have a bottom line. I know my boss would buy the PC version to save the company money.

I can't believe for one minute any sane person would see this as a good thing. Bad, bad, bad, bad, bad, bad.

 

[kirk26]

Dude! Your getting a Mac!

 

[TreeHugger]

this would be great for dell and other pc companies, but bad for apple's hardware department.

 

[mvc]

Dude! Your getting a Mac!

graaap