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.
Dell Says He'd Sell Apple's Mac OS
- Thread starter amac4me
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Actually some of this might already happen because of the switch to Intel. Even if Apple doesn't license its OS to anyone officially they will still have a hard time stopping hackers to run Mac-OS on any PC they like. Software Piracy and Viruses could certainly become a problem in the future. Although Mac-OS is likely somewhat better protected against adware and spyware than windows so it probably will never reach the proportions on the windows platform.zv470 said:Noooooooo!!!!
This would be the worst thing ever!
This is what would happen:
1) OS X enters the mainstream PC market.
2) OS X and Mac software piracy sky-rockets.
3) Say hello to OS X Virii, Adware, Spyware, Malware.
4) DELL buys out Apple for $0.10 a share.
Windowlicker said:
It would'nt be a problem. OSX already works with optical drives, hard drives, ATI and Nvidia cards. What more is there that they need to support? Dell computers use Intel chipsets and Intel processors. And now OSX supports that too. It's already set.
Dell builds quality systems. And i'm willing to bet that the Intel Macs really won't be any different aside from the case which they will charge a premium for.
MBHockey said:
that exact statement, is what i told a friend about all the rumors regarding Intel chips working with mac os x. see what happened? believe all the rumors from now on. there is an Apple-branded tablet pc, Disney will buy Apple and all those crazy rumors.
my first thought was, no Apple won't sell the os separately, because of compatibility problems. everyone would build a pc, with unknown components and once the customer can't make the thing run, it would be Apple's fault.
not the hardware company that made the "unknown" hardware.
Ryan T. said:
Michael Dell is rich. Michael Dell is smart. But nobody ever stood in line to buy something because Michael Dell told them to. Nobody ever created a Michael Dell dress-up flash game . The encyclopedias of the future will have an entry for Michael Dell more similar to Sebastian S. Kresge than to Steve Jobs. I'm sure Michael Dell has many redeeming qualities. I'm sure his mother loves him and he is kind to animals. But I am also sure that Michael Dell is not cool, and will never be one of the "cool kids." And he has shown by his copycat moves (documented by As the Apple Turns) that he wants very much to be a "cool kid" like Steve Jobs.
I don't think we can compare licensing of this current OS to the clones of yesteryear. The OS now is a completely different beast.
MP
MP
excalibur313 said:
Of course anything is BETTER than a Pinto. But putting OS X on your Pinto ain't going to make it cool. It's like hanging fuzzy dice from the rear view mirror. It doesn't work on a Pinto.
Seriously, Dell isn't going to run OS X. HP will first before Dell.
ericdano said:
They don't use cheap parts. You have Nvidia and ATI cards. Hitachi, Samsung, etc. hard drives. I have seen hitachi and NEC optical drives. The cases are well laid out and very clean on the inside.
They use Intel processors and an Intel chipset on the motherboards, which Apple will also use. All all components are high quality name brand parts so what's the difference?
Mark my words, the only difference between a Dell and an Intel Mac will be the case and the OS.
I think Dell and any other PC company would be damn happy to have Mac OS X seeing that their ass could possibly be handed to them by Apple. The one computer company that can run any OS. That's a seller my friend. Not to mention the wealth of hardware upgrades it can take once they move to x86.
Sure, the Dells, Gateways, HP's etc. of the world would scream monopoly, but by then Apple would have made enormous amounts of cash and be willing to license their OS. I don't think Apple WANTS to keep OS X to itself. It just knows it's too small to stand up to MS right now. But if the above happened....
Here's the way I see it played out...
Step 1. Keep OS X on Apple boxes only
Step 2. License OS X to PC companies (Dell, Gateway, HP,..etc)
Step 3. OS X on store shelves for the enthusiast that likes to build their
systems.
Executed carefully, Apple would overtake MS as the dominate OS
IBM and MS crushed Apple one time to the point of ousting Steve Jobs ..he WILL NOT make that mistake again. You can say Apple is a "hardware" company now, but the writing is on the wall. Apple has an extremely powerful library of software now and it's growing.
Sure, the Dells, Gateways, HP's etc. of the world would scream monopoly, but by then Apple would have made enormous amounts of cash and be willing to license their OS. I don't think Apple WANTS to keep OS X to itself. It just knows it's too small to stand up to MS right now. But if the above happened....
Here's the way I see it played out...
Step 1. Keep OS X on Apple boxes only
Step 2. License OS X to PC companies (Dell, Gateway, HP,..etc)
Step 3. OS X on store shelves for the enthusiast that likes to build their
systems.
Executed carefully, Apple would overtake MS as the dominate OS
IBM and MS crushed Apple one time to the point of ousting Steve Jobs ..he WILL NOT make that mistake again. You can say Apple is a "hardware" company now, but the writing is on the wall. Apple has an extremely powerful library of software now and it's growing.
Wow! It is incredibly amusing to see all these fanboys screaming "I hate Dell" without giving any reason for their hatred. Just as amusing as seeing all those Windows fanboys (over on comp.sys.mac.advocacy) demand that Mac users abandon their platforms.
WRT the article itself, Michael Dell talks a good game, but it's all talk. He knowns that Jobs won't allow Mac OS to be licensed for use on non-Apple systems, so he can say whatever he thinks the audience wants to hear.
But if the opportunity actually arises, all those words will be worthless. Yes, Dell sells some servers with Linux, but that's only for the servers. Go look at the inexpensive systems that most people buy and you'll find that you can only choose between WinXP home and WinXP pro.
Dell's Linux offerings are just token offerings so they can look good in the press. If they really wanted to support the platform, they'd offer it on all their systems.
I don't think Mac OS will be any different - offered only on some select models (probably those most similar to Apple's systems) and nothing else.
This kind of support, Apple doesn't need.
WRT the article itself, Michael Dell talks a good game, but it's all talk. He knowns that Jobs won't allow Mac OS to be licensed for use on non-Apple systems, so he can say whatever he thinks the audience wants to hear.
But if the opportunity actually arises, all those words will be worthless. Yes, Dell sells some servers with Linux, but that's only for the servers. Go look at the inexpensive systems that most people buy and you'll find that you can only choose between WinXP home and WinXP pro.
Dell's Linux offerings are just token offerings so they can look good in the press. If they really wanted to support the platform, they'd offer it on all their systems.
I don't think Mac OS will be any different - offered only on some select models (probably those most similar to Apple's systems) and nothing else.
This kind of support, Apple doesn't need.
I doubt that Apple will do that. They already tried that, and it didn't work out the way the liked (less hardware sale and hardly any increase in the market share of Mac-OS) Why would it work out differently this time?nagromme said:
Here's a what-if: What if Apple sells a mini that runs on windows? I mean, we could be getting this all wrong. If apple is a hardware company...
Now I'm not saying that they would abandon osx, and god knows nobody here would buy that computer, but the "masses" might want to have the design without the the os. (or at least not the full version of the os)
Now I'm not saying that they would abandon osx, and god knows nobody here would buy that computer, but the "masses" might want to have the design without the the os. (or at least not the full version of the os)
But no company can remain in business solely by selling to their own evangelists.Object-X said:
Emotional issues ("DELL sux0rs" etc) aside, there are two reasons why Apple licensing OS X to OEMs (ala Dell) is bad:
1) Apple has always been and will be for the forseeable future, a hardware company. This means nearly all their profits come from hardware, not software. It is because of these profits that Apple has the R&D money to continually improve on OS X. If Apple were to become a software company, they would need to have sales in the volumes that Microsoft has to stay very profitable. There's no way that kind of thing is happening overnight
2) Hardware compatibility. By only letting OS X run (officially at least) on Apple branded x86 Macs with a limited set of possible mobos/chipsets/perhiperals, etc., it is much easier to ensure compatibility. Part of the reason Windows is plagued with stability issues is that it has to run on the huge spectrum of x86 chipsets/motherboards/video cards etc. that are out there.
Sure you could limit problems that (2) would present by only letting it run on a select few OEM vendors (Dell and HP, for example), but that would still require Apple to put more resources into compatibility issues. Resources that would be lessened by profits going to Dell or HP that would otherwise go to Apple.
Of course, the fact that we're having this discussion about x86 OS X is proof enough that one should never say never when it comes to apple
1) Apple has always been and will be for the forseeable future, a hardware company. This means nearly all their profits come from hardware, not software. It is because of these profits that Apple has the R&D money to continually improve on OS X. If Apple were to become a software company, they would need to have sales in the volumes that Microsoft has to stay very profitable. There's no way that kind of thing is happening overnight
2) Hardware compatibility. By only letting OS X run (officially at least) on Apple branded x86 Macs with a limited set of possible mobos/chipsets/perhiperals, etc., it is much easier to ensure compatibility. Part of the reason Windows is plagued with stability issues is that it has to run on the huge spectrum of x86 chipsets/motherboards/video cards etc. that are out there.
Sure you could limit problems that (2) would present by only letting it run on a select few OEM vendors (Dell and HP, for example), but that would still require Apple to put more resources into compatibility issues. Resources that would be lessened by profits going to Dell or HP that would otherwise go to Apple.
Of course, the fact that we're having this discussion about x86 OS X is proof enough that one should never say never when it comes to apple
Stella said:
The design of the OS really prevents viruses from becoming a problem on the mac. You have to have a system password to make any system changes.
I'm sure that hackers will find there way through security holes to find thier way inside your machine but I doubt viruses will ever become much of an issue on it.
Yes I meant the clones. It was a bad idea back then, and I still thing its a bad idea today.zv470 said:Do you mean NeXTStep OS for Intel or do you mean when Apple allowed Mac Clones?
Edit: I guess you mean the Mac Clones, sorry
ericdano said:
Of all the computers I've owned, I've had problems with 3 of them requiring warantee service. One was a Dell, and the other two were made by some company who's name starts with A and ends with E...
As much as people want to harp on Dell's quality being bad, your favorite computer company also has the same issues - it's across the board - companies aren't making hardware that is as reliable anymore.
I hate Dell because they use those crappy way to hot running pentiums......oh wait Apple is going to be doing the same thingshamino said:
Mac-Xpert said:I hate Dell because they use those crappy way to hot running pentiums......oh wait Apple is going to be doing the same thing
Yeah...the G5's aren't hot at all...lol
Mac-Xpert said:
I don't know if it would--but here's why it COULD:
Intel-based Macs have a HUGE waiting market that the old Mac clones never had.
Mac clones sold to the same people who were already buying Apple Macs, and that's about IT!
But HPs or Dells running OS X would reach a WIDER audience. And if they also could run Windows--which is just about a given--then suddenly they get the attention of those who use the world's majority platform. Mac clones never did that.
Any future "clone" situation would have very little in common with the last one.