Dell Says He'd Sell Apple's Mac OS

[paulypants]

Why is this a bad thing? I've read numerous posts about apple hardware being superior. In what way? Apple doesn't make one thing in there computer. Get this, all the components are made by other companies. Apple hardware is a rip off. Look how much they charge for freaking ram. Are you kidding

Some of you need to get your head out of your ass. Apple is charging you more for video cards, ram, and hard drives that they don't make. Dells can have the same if not better hardware for cheaper.

OS X on a dell is the right way to go. You should have a choice of what hardware you want to run with what operating system you want

Do some more research on what Apple does and does not design and repost, because you don't seem to have any real knowledge of Apple hardware. The major point is Hardware and Software integration, but that point is lost on people that have never experienced that first hand.

Choice?! Try and order a Dell with Linux from Dell. You can't. Where's the choice there? Just because YOU want something, doesn't mean it's the right thing to do. If a company doing something to make you happy is equal to shooting themselves in the foot -- they aren't going to do it, and you wouldn't either. Get off it.

 

[Josh]

No, not at all. I've been an exclusive Apple user for 23 years and know exactly how good they are. I also know that businesses aren't likely to switch all their software over simply for the sake of a new OS.

Corporations have cycles in which they upgrade new products. If, during one of these cycles, they saw the cost benefit Mac OS X would provide, they'd consider it.

The big problem is training people who have never used OS X before. Since most of the stuff they will be using is MS office, it wouldn't be too bad, but it would be the biggest issue.

Rationally, the money saved on antivirus alone could cover that. We (state of michigan gov't) spend a ton of money on antivirus , antispyware, and security. Let alone the man-hours needed to fix something once its been messed up over virusses.

Another factor is MS Access. Databases powered by access are HUGE in the corporate world. Apple would need a fluid alternative that could not only replace, but also work alongside, Access.

But as I said in one thread: Apple knows what they are doing. And the whole program they have offering ibooks to schools so kids have them is helpful, but its also training in the making. These 6th graders are learning OS X and by the time they get into the workforce, they will be quite familiar with Apple and OS X, and the shift to OS X in the workplace will be much easer since no training will be required for them.

Apple has this on their minds, and they know to get into the workplace, they have to get into the market at the most basic level as possible.

 

[jrath1]

In design.

You either appreciate it and don't mind paying a premium for it or you don't. This is something that is not appreciated as much here in the states as in Europe or Japan, where things of beauty are easier to come by.



Learn more.

in what design? The fact that i have to use the keyboard to eject a disk? The one-button mouse?
The fact that i cannot install another cd drive?
It's a silver metal box. Nothing more.

Imac nice computer except if the monitor goes. What am i paying for again?

 

[shamino]

Let's not forget that the new Apple hardware will run windows.

I find it incredibly amusing that people keep on saying this as if it was true.

Apple did not say that their systems will run Windows. They said that they won't take actions to prevent someone else from making Windows run on Mac hardware. That is something very different.

If you buy a Mac and expect to just boot your WinXP CD in it, you are going to be very disappointed.

 

[paulypants]

in what design? The fact that i have to use the keyboard to eject a disk? The one-button mouse?
The fact that i cannot install another cd drive?
It's a silver metal box. Nothing more.

Imac nice computer except if the monitor goes. What am i paying for again?

Stop playing dumb. You are playing, right?

 

[Cooknn]

No, not at all. I've been an exclusive Apple user for 23 years and know exactly how good they are. I also know that businesses aren't likely to switch all their software over simply for the sake of a new OS.

Good point. But just for grins, I'll work with the home PC numbers. At 40% that would put consumer sales at about $16 Billion per year. Not sure what the average cost of a home PC is, but I would guess with laptop's figured in it's about $1500. That would be would work out to 10 Million PC's shipped. If Apple could grab 25% of that and get say, $50 for every copy of OS X licensed that would come out to $125 Million per year. Heh, you're right again. Almost nothing when you consider Mac sales that get lost as a result

 

[Coca-Cola]

Shouldn't it be a piece of cake...

to run Mac OS X on any old PC and third-party hardware? Couldn't Apple just use the existing open source software available. Much like the what Linux uses, in order to simply make the vast array of third party crap run with OS X. It is available?

 

[rjwill246]

Perfectly Darwinian

i would rather shoot myself than see dells with OS X

Apple's job- beyond its hype- is to make money in the 'computer business.' It has chosen a path that many analysts believe was a mistake and that Apple could have ruled the world by now. Perhaps, in the long run, Apple has done the right thing by ensuring that the world would come to know the company for its integrity of design and excellence of performance, two elements that would almost certainly have been lost had Apple switched places with Microsoft. The software would surely have been proprietary (as in OS 9 and below), locked down and buggy and Apple would have never been able to make all the computers on the world's desktops, meaning that they would have had to license the technology, likely leading to the real-world scenarios that Windows users live with.
The fact is, that time has been able to teach Apple quite a bit- though to its credit, it did predict correctly what open licensing would do- Apple now has the chance to take advantage of the lessons of the market place and venture forth more confidently.
Licensing to HP and Dell, perhaps as the the only two partners to start with, would give OS X the backing of two companies that have the clout to make OS X the standard OS in a very short time. There would be two high end companies (Apple and HP) and, with no disrespect, Dell for the lower end market. Quite enough muscle to see OS X market share sky-rocket. Apple can no longer tout OS X as the supreme OS and lock it down. As a manufacturer, it could no make enough machines by itself and would have to partner with some one.
If ever there was a time, it is now, for Apple to make OS X the standard OS. The elements are in place, the market place is very receptive, there has never been more interest and positive press coverage and this state of affairs will not last forever.
Apple keeps telling us it is not just a software company but reality says it is more a software company these days than a hardware company and unless it acts on the massive amount of leverage and goodwill that it now has, it may well decline to its former sad state. Nothing remains static: one either goes up or goes down- status quo is never more than a passing phase.
Carefully done, under tight control by SJ/Apple, it might be possible that in 10 years we could see OS X (or whatever number) as the OS in the market place, with Apple's market share of computers at 10%, and HP and Dell carrying 40% or so. Sales of the OS alone in this switch would be worth between 10 and 20 billion to Apple, let alone other software that Apple would now be selling in volume.
I would hate Apple, through fear or lack of insight, to become the recipient of the Darwin awards. Even if some loyal supporters feel obliged to leave the gene pool.

 

[jayscheuerle]

in what design? The fact that i have to use the keyboard to eject a disk? The one-button mouse?
The fact that i cannot install another cd drive?
It's a silver metal box. Nothing more.

Imac nice computer except if the monitor goes. What am i paying for again?

Like I said...

If you can't see the difference in fit and finish between a Lexus and a Ford, then you're just not going to understand why design is important, or more likely, even what it is...

 

[Mainyehc]

Dell computer would make it run slow and choppy , then people would be like" well since it runs like crap on my 399 computer with like 128 ram it must run like crap on all computers." Keep apple as software and hardware. It one of the reason that OSX easy to use.

Which is what already happened with Panther running on low-end Macs with 256 MB of RAM and the GeForce FX 5200 Ultra... You know, Panther kind of sucked performance-wise in both my old iMac G4 1,25 GHz and my 1st gen. 20'' iMac G5... I only realized how *powerful* (not elegant, or easy-to-use... I got that from day-one) a Mac could be both in everyday use and graphics-intensive tasks the day I upgraded this machine with a 1GB RAM stick. And graphics-wise, I only got decent performance after finally upgrading to Tiger. Even with the GeForce FX 5200 Ultra, CoreImage and other optimizations really made Aqua much more fluid . Seriously, what took Apple so long to implement smooth scrolling?

So I'm pretty sure that Tiger sucks, when running on a 1,25 GHz G4 Mac mini with 256 MB of RAM, and the even worse Radeon 9200 . Apple really should start making Macs with more memory and better graphics cards out-of-the-box... That's why I was both pissed-off (because my iMac G5 is a 1st Gen.) and happy to see Apple bumping up the iMac's specs, to a point that it became the best-value Mac so far, even with the imminent introduction of Intel-based models. If I didn't have mine already, I'd buy one.

If Apple can keep offering these sweet deals, and even better ones after the Intel switch is over, I could easily see them licensing OS X. After grabbing a big chunk of marketshare, say, 10%-15%, it would be safe to license it. That could become a support nightmare, or maybe not. The other computer manufacturers could be made responsible for providing the drivers and support themselves, which means that you'd still get the best compatibility and support when using a genuine Mac (a bit like today, with QuickTime, iTunes and the iPod, which obviously work smoother with Macs and OS X). As a plus, Macs would still look gorgeous, and be easier to setup and maintain than a regular PC, so, believe me, even if Apple licensed OS X, they wouldn't be pushed out of the hardware business.

And there's more... PCs with OEM copies of OS X could come *without* iLife, so Apple could clearly draw a line between their products and the competition. However, they might face an antitrust lawsuit, just like M$. Still, if they got away with it, Macs would end up being a better value than other PCs, just like they are today!

The only downside to this strategy would be the exposure of Mac OS X to security threats and malware, but as OS X seems to be much more secure by design than Windows, we shouldn't have to worry too much (and besides, Windows wouldn't disappear, it would just lose *a lot* of marketshare, but it'd still be an enticing target ). In the end, we could still buy (possibly at better prices) and use our favorite Apple hardware, and there would be even more software available for our platform... Would PCs be sometimes buggy and mostly fugly like the "Wintel" boxes of today? Perhaps... But that would still be *their users'* problem, not ours! And definitely, not Apple's, as far as 3rd-party hardware/software incompatibilities are concerned...

Just my €0,02...

 

[mwpeters8182]

So I'm pretty sure that Tiger sucks, when running on a 1,25 GHz G4 Mac mini with 256 MB of RAM, and the even worse Radeon 9200 . Apple really should start making Macs with more memory and better graphics cards out-of-the-box...

Just my €0,02...

Agreed, especially on the RAM front. My PB screams now, compared to when I didn't have the extra 512 MB in there. As far as graphics goes, Apple needs to get their act together on the $1000+ machines, but the graphics card in the mini is way better than anything you'll see in a PC in it's price range (integrated, most likely). However, as was the case when I bought my desktop, the video card is easily upgradeable. This isn't the case with the mini.

 

[w_parietti22]

People! People! Calm down! this isn't an interview with Steve Jobs saying that they are going to sell Dells with Mac OS X. Its just Michael Dell saying that if Apple was offering Mac OS X to put on Dells he would take the offer. But is this from Apple? nooooooooooooooooooooo!!!!! Nothings offical yet! Stay calm until it really happens!

PS- (Help me God! ) Dells are, I think, the best Windows XP machines on the market except for the fact that Dells customer service is THE WORST IN THE WORLD!

 

[Pablo]

Choice?! Try and order a Dell with Linux from Dell. You can't. Where's the choice there?

http://www1.us.dell.com/content/products/compare.aspx/precn_n?c=us&cs=04&l=en&s=bsd

I think the double-edged sword axiom is appropriate here. As a user, I see OS X on any Intel box as a good thing. As a shareholder, now that's a different story. I think it would hurt the bottom line.

After having purchased a Powerbook, I see the quality over the old Dell Inspiron I had. But if I was building a non-portable box to stay at home (extra, wife, kid, whatever), then price would become a much bigger factor, and not really caring as much about the build quality of the hardware, it would be great to be able to load OS X on an Intel box.

But thusfar, the vast majority of reasons I've seen in this thread is purely emotional. No reasoning other than people have such a hardon for Apple and it's uniqueness.

 

[shamino]

Souldn't it be a piece of cake to run Mac OS X on any old PC and third-party hardware? Couldn't Apple just use the existing open source software available. Much like the what Linux uses, in order to simply make the vast array of third party crap run with OS X. It is available?

Of course they could. But they don't want to.

There's a big difference between "can't" and "won't".

 

[blackbird71]

Jobs wants out of the hardware business

The switch to Intel tells that.

What can Dell do... well for one get machines into a lot of software developers hands so that they can re-compile their software for Apple's new platform.

I do not know why Jobs want to open anymore "stores". Maybe a deal with Dell to sell Dell computers there and the old PowerPC...

IMHO Jobs would have been better off buying the part of Motorola what was making his clips, and maybe do a joint deal with AMD, to develop the faster clips but that was not to be...

 

[shamino]

Which is what already happened with Panther running on low-end Macs with 256 MB of RAM and the GeForce FX 5200 Ultra... You know, Panther kind of sucked performance-wise in both my old iMac G4 1,25 GHz and my 1st gen. 20'' iMac G5... I only realized how *powerful* (not elegant, or easy-to-use... I got that from day-one) a Mac could be both in everyday use and graphics-intensive tasks the day I upgraded this machine with a 1GB RAM stick.

Memory size has everything to do with performance on modern systems.

My Mac is a dual 1GHz G4 system. Purchased with 512M, later upgraded to 1G. It runs everything great, even though it is several years old now.

But a brand-new Mac mini with 256M would feel crippled in comparison, despite the faster processor. Upgrade that mini's memory to 512M or 1G, and it will suddenly become much faster.

And the same is true in the PC world. An old 400MHz PC with 512M of RAM running Windows XP will easily outperform a modern 3GHz machine with only 128M.

Modern software (and this includes system software) needs tons of memory. If you don't have the memory, you will spend all of your time swapping and performance will suck. Give it enough memory and you'll find that even slower processors are fast enough for most purposes. This is true for all computers, no matter what CPU and OS are installed.

 

[shamino]

The switch to Intel tells that.

Says who? Are you aware that Apple will be the ones making and selling these Intel-based Macs?

What can Dell do... well for one get machines into a lot of software developers hands so that they can re-compile their software for Apple's new platform.

Who said Dell will be getting anyting? Apple has explicitly said that they are going to take steps to make sure Mac OS will NOT run on non-Apple hardware.

Michael Dell can be willing to resell Mac OS all he wants, but Apple's still not going to give him any product.

 

[wPod]

lets say 10 days ago (right before the intel announcement) your PB slips out of your hands as you are walking down the stairs, valiantly you dive for your PB to save its very existance. 10 days later (today) you wake up in a hospital room with a dr telling you that you have quite the concusion, but should be perfectly fine in a few more days. Immediately you ask if your PB is ok. whatever loving family member has been waiting at the hospital with you quickly brings it to your side. Your are happy to see it is in good condition. Upon opening it up, you hop on the hospital's wireless service and check out your favorite web site macrumors.com!! Then, you read this aritcle . . . and cry out "Doc! what is the most powerful pain killer you can get me?!?" He responds, "On a scale of 1 to 10, 10 being the worst, how much does your head hurt." In a horrified voice you say "Doc, its not my head, its my heart! Apple has been turned completely upside down!!! They are going to switch to Intel, and there are dell says it would be willing to sell OS X on their computers!!!"

. . . heh, i could have said you were on vacation, but in this modern age of mobile electronics there isnt anywhere you could go for 10 days and NOT get some sort of electronic update on the world around you!!

but, the point of course is how much apple is changing, and how different the rumors and facts are now from what apple was telling us only months ago. "The Power arcitecture is soooo much better than Intel, you would be crazy to want an Intel chip!!" as a matter of fact, here is an actuall quote from apples site, which is there TODAY! "resulting in a cool tower that runs Photoshop nearly two times faster than a Pentium 4-based system" (hmm, maybe apple wont ever use P4 (hopefully!!!) maybe Pentium D (dual core system) hmm, anyway. I am worried, this will either be a huge change for apple where people like dell actually start shipping OS X and Apple sky rockets to a huge 6-10% market share of opperating systems (and microsoft actually begins to worry) OR. . . apple fails miserably . . . their development screaches to a hault and apple gets even smaller as simply a tiny nitch of cool looking computers running the same hardware as everyone else with a slightly cooler OS (because lunix starts to catch on as more stable than windows!!!) right now im worried. and this artical doesnt help much. anyway, ill stop now.

 

[0098386]

take away 'Dell' and replace with 'Mainstream PC developer' and yea, reason to be cheerful. its good to think that computer producers are considering looking elsewhere.

the past couple of years Steve has been working up to something. i doubt x86 CPU's are going to be the biggest Apple news in the coming year.

 

[0098386]

The switch to Intel tells that.

What can Dell do... well for one get machines into a lot of software developers hands so that they can re-compile their software for Apple's new platform.

I do not know why Jobs want to open anymore "stores". Maybe a deal with Dell to sell Dell computers there and the old PowerPC...

IMHO Jobs would have been better off buying the part of Motorola what was making his clips, and maybe do a joint deal with AMD, to develop the faster clips but that was not to be...

its been said but no. Apple are making the Mactels. Steve dosnt want out of the hardware side of things. why would he? Apple are the only people developing killer looking machines, we know that and he knows that. nothing is visually on par with a Mac.

also if he was to stop hardware then it would mean a loss of 50% or so of Apple. Ives would go. he's only an industrial designer. no need for him in a software world.

wont happen.

 

[JeffTL]

Mr. Dell would no doubt like the only profitable hardware company other than his to go out of business.

 

[blackbird71]

Says who? Are you aware that Apple will be the ones making and selling these Intel-based Macs?
Who said Dell will be getting anyting? Apple has explicitly said that they are going to take steps to make sure Mac OS will NOT run on non-Apple hardware.

Michael Dell can be willing to resell Mac OS all he wants, but Apple's still not going to give him any product.

Sorry Jobs Intel switch will force him to release it to other Intel/AMD platforms.

Nobody is going to pay extra for an Apple Logo on an Intel box...

 

[MontyZ]

Things don't always stay exactly as they are forever. In fact, that never happens. So, those of you so attached to your precious PPC chips need to get over it. Move on. There's a lot more to life than computers anyway.

 

[blackbird71]

its been said but no. Apple are making the Mactels. Steve dosnt want out of the hardware side of things. why would he? Apple are the only people developing killer looking machines, we know that and he knows that. nothing is visually on par with a Mac.

also if he was to stop hardware then it would mean a loss of 50% or so of Apple. Ives would go. he's only an industrial designer. no need for him in a software world.

wont happen.

the Market will force him to do that... When retails sells start dropping for the "old and busted" PowerPC machines and he does not have the "New and Improved" machines with SOFTWARE to run on it.... Wall Street does not care a bit about Ives. They care about $$$$$...

 

[macnulty]

MacInDell anyone?