discussion about releasing OSX to PC

[clevin]

technically, OSX is still more advanced than winXP, while may or may not have advantages over Windows Vista. Based on Unix, OSX is on the other end being challenged by Linux, both windows and linux are not platform restricted OS. OSX, although restricted for mac computer for now, will eventually be able to run on PC, no matter apple like it or not, the reason is: 1. OSX is built on Unix/BSD, the opensource project is easy to migrate across platform, even if apple won't do it, some developer will do it. 2. the switch from PPC to intel chip make the hardware compatibility easier to handle, no matter for apple or for 3rd party developer.
On the business end. Microsoft grows big just for the selling of their OS and Office, apple is not going to lose money for releasing their OS to PC, the dramatically increased copies sold will, 1. increase the market share of OSX, indirectly increase the market share of mac computer, 2. cover the possible loss due to the decrease of computer sale (which I don't think will happen). Just do a simple calculation: OSX for $150, apple update their system every 1-2 years, so for 5 year lifetime of a computer, apple can get $450 from the OSX sale, if OSX market share increase (due to the availability of OSX to PC) to 20% (right now apple is at 5%), the computer sale loss of $1000 will be rewarded by the OS sale of $1800. Is not a bad deal at all!

The consequence of NOT releasing OSX to PC:
Due to the technically issue discussed above, its not up to apple to decide if PC user CAN run OSX, apple release OSX to PC or not, its only a matter of time before the illegal migrate of OSX to PC platform, apple should grab the opportunity rather than regretting it afterwards.
The bundle of MAC machine and OSX is limiting the software availability and OSX market share.

Let me know what do you think about it

 

[GimmeSlack12]

It's very simple.

OS X on a PC will mean the end of Apple Computers. Sure the OS might live on, but Apple Hardware will definitely die and so will Apple because the Hardware is where their profits are.

And your post is a total mess and I did not read any of it.

 

[neonblue2]

Two problems with Apple releasing OS X to PCs

1. We would lose most of stability because Apple can't account for every different combination of PC.

2. Apple would lose a lot of money from loss of hardware sales, the key area where they make most of their computer profit

And people already have started running OS X on PC illegally but they've apparently run into a snag. They might be running 10.4.7 but they still have the 10.4.5 kernel, and to make matters worse for them 10.5 won't have BIOS support because there will be no need unlike 10.4 developer machines.

 

[zephead]

Part of the reason why Apple shouldn't license OS X to PCs is because with Macs, Apple knows the hardware they give you in the computer won't cause any driver/incompatibility issues because they put it there, and they made it work specifically with the Mac you are using. If OS X is released for PCs, naturally, some PC users would wanna build their own PCs with all of their own parts that would make their computer work. Then you have driver/incompatibility issues you wouldn't get with a Mac with OS X. Apple could no longer claim OS X to "just work" if everyone's using their own hardware that they have to fiddle around with just to get it to (possibly) work before they could do what they want with their computer.

 

[darkcurse]

1. OSX is built on Unix/BSD, the opensource project is easy to migrate across platform, even if apple won't do it, some developer will do it.

Yes it is and as Apple has already proven it can be ported over to x86. Now the thing is that though the kernel and most of the backend of the operating system is Open Source, the Aqua interface is not. So, you will be able to have "OS X" run on normal PC's but you are not legally allowed to use their interface.

On the business end. Microsoft grows big just for the selling of their OS and Office, apple is not going to lose money for releasing their OS to PC, the dramatically increased copies sold will, 1. increase the market share of OSX, indirectly increase the market share of mac computer, 2. cover the possible loss due to the decrease of computer sale (which I don't think will happen).

Microsoft is a SOFTWARE company, Apple is predominantly a HARDWARE company. See the difference? Oh, and having 90% marketshare doesn't hurt either So, nope not going to happen IMO.

The bundle of MAC machine and OSX is limiting the software availability and OSX market share.

How does not opening up OSX to PC users limit the software availability? Please elaborate. Its not "normal" PC users that make software for a certain platform. However now that Apple has transitioned to Intel Processors it may make the software developers more inclined to port their apps to OSX because one of the major problems i.e. different processor platforms is now gone. Plus, if they code for XCode then its a win-win situation since it means it'll be a Universal Binary and PPC users will be able to use the apps as well.

 

[bousozoku]

I guess the other 4500 discussions on this weren't enough.

As has been said, Apple is a hardware company and subsidizes the price of Mac OS X. For them to let any x86 machine run it, they'd have to price it too high and they'd still end up with a small market share and they'd most likely end up with a small installed base, too.

They would also end up with a lot of technical support issues. While there are thousands of Apple hardware configurations, there are millions of x86 PC configurations. They would have to build that into the price, as well. You think it's tough to get someone to buy Windows XP Pro for $299. Try to get them to buy Mac OS X for $799. Apple puts a lot more into the software that they can't afford to get back in some way.

The only thing limiting the availability of software on Mac OS X is the funding of such software. If various companies that develop Windows software wanted to sell Mac OS X software, there is plenty of development expertise available. Quite a few companies developed for Mac OS before Windows was a viable platform and they could again, but they have to develop good products. We don't need a lot of the trash that's available on Windows.

There was a time when everyone needed WordPerfect. So, the company ported their software to every platform possible with as few changes as were necessary to get it going. Not only was their method derided, it resulted in very poor sales. By the time they came out with useful Windows and Mac versions, it was too late. Microsoft had overtaken them. As with WordPerfect, I don't Apple achieving any success in offering Mac OS X on every machine.

The white box builders would complain that the OEM version was too expensive and they'd end up selling Windows. The big computer companies wouldn't get what they wanted either and Apple would be left with huge support issues.

Sounds like a plan to put the company out of business.

 

[2ndPath]

There are different possibilities for Apple to make OS X available for computers not made by Apple. One is to sell OS X in a box to everyone, who wants to run it on his PC. This is the most far going possibility, because it means indeed that a hughe number of hardware configurations have to be supported by the OS, which means for Apple a huge investment into development and testing and a big risk, because they don´t know whether the money the make selling this OS version would cover these expenses. Another possibility would be to license it to certain manufacturers and maybe only on certain hardware configurations. This would reduce the testing to a minimum and could even be done by the hardware manufacturer. By restricting it to certain models, where Apple has no competing model, new users can be brought to Mac OS, which otherwise don´t buy Apple´s hardware, because Apple doesn´t offer, what they need (for example a sub-notebook, or a not-all-in-one-midrange-desktop). Of course there would also be former Apple hardware customers that would now buy the other companies machines. The question is, by how much the user base of Mac OS would increase in the end. If it is significant, this will also positively affect the supply of software for Mac OS for third party companies.

From the customer side more variety in hardware manufacturers would be a good thing. Relying on a single company is always a risk for the customer. And it has happened in the past, that a computer model was sold out and the subsequent model was only available one or two months later. Having more than one supply company is an insurance against this.

Against the licensing of OS X is often argued that Apple is a hardware company and that the licensing has been tried during the ¨clones¨ times and failed. However, since then, a lot of things have changed. At that time Apple had basically the OS on the software side. Nowadays they have a much more modern and cometitive OS and other software like iLife, iWork and a lot of professional applications. They still rely on their hardware, but are much stronger on the software side as well. Licensing the OS would be one more big step in that direction.

 

[thewhitehart]

Frankly, I wouldn't want my OS X running on anything else but a macintosh. The marriage of hardware and software was the selling point for me. Then again, I'm an educated consumer.

OS X on PowerPC: Special
OS X on Intel: Not as special
OS X on a Dell: Not special at all

The real question is, if they were to license the OS out, and failed, could Apple still survive as a music company alone?

 

[MisterMe]

....


How does not opening up OSX to PC users limit the software availability? Please elaborate. Its not "normal" PC users that make software for a certain platform. However now that Apple has transitioned to Intel Processors it may make the software developers more inclined to port their apps to OSX because one of the major problems i.e. different processor platforms is now gone. Plus, if they code for XCode then its a win-win situation since it means it'll be a Universal Binary and PPC users will be able to use the apps as well.

I agree with most of what you said here, but you are mistaken about this. MacOS X/Intel has the same APIs as MacOS X/PPC. In fact, Apple strongly encourages MacOS X developers to write Universal Binaries, which should behave identically on Mac computers based on either processor family. Windows APIs have little in common with MacOS X APIs. Whether software is written as PPC-only, Intel-only, or Universal Binary, the developer must use a MacOS X development system. A Windows development system on an Intel-based Mac is just a bunch of useless data files.

 

[2ndPath]

I agree with most of what you said here, but you are mistaken about this. MacOS X/Intel has the same APIs as MacOS X/PPC. In fact, Apple strongly encourages MacOS X developers to write Universal Binaries, which should behave identically on Mac computers based on either processor family. Windows APIs have little in common with MacOS X APIs. Whether software is written as PPC-only, Intel-only, or Universal Binary, the developer must use a MacOS X development system. A Windows development system on an Intel-based Mac is just a bunch of useless data files.

I guess he was refering to issues like the different byte ordering in PPC and i386 CPUs. This problem vanished with using Intel CPUs in Mac. But if someone wants to create a universal binary, he still has to take care of all these things. Anyhow, the biggest efforts still remain, due to differences between Windows and Mac OS like for example the APIs which are not changed by the change of CPUs.

 

[darkcurse]

Yeah I guess so. But the post I made was in regard to "Opening up OSX = more software available" so I don't know what the rebuttal is for. I apologise for over simplifying the whole porting process but it seems that things will be a bit easier at least on the gaming side.

 

[yellow]

I wish I had a graphic of someone flogging a dead horse. Wait.. no I don't.

 

[2ndPath]

Yeah I guess so. But the post I made was in regard to "Opening up OSX = more software available" so I don't know what the rebuttal is for. I apologise for over simplifying the whole porting process but it seems that things will be a bit easier at least on the gaming side.

I guess the effect of the intel transition might be bigger for game programming, because they are, I think, in general not as much relying on the APIs.

For the software companies it would not be technically easier to program OS X software, if it was available for non-Apple computers. For their business the market share of the operating system is important. So if Mac OS for non-Apple computers increased the Mac OS market share significantly, software companies would have more interest in developing for Mac OS. If it doesn´t increase the market share, then it doesn´t affect the software.

 

[darkcurse]

Yeah true that is But then since I'm still at the age where I game it's exciting for me. As long as game developers use OpenGL all should be well. But then again, I don't think that Apple will gain much market share even if they release OSX to the masses as it were.

 

[mufflon]

Yeah true that is But then since I'm still at the age where I game it's exciting for me. As long as game developers use OpenGL all should be well. But then again, I don't think that Apple will gain much market share even if they release OSX to the masses as it were.

well they have - bundled with macintosh machines

anyhow, I don't want a mac os x that everyone uses - I'm happy as long as I don't have to have windows, if current windows users aren't interested in the convergance of design, hardware and a easy gui yet powerful, then frankly, I don't want em. Let them continue using their pos / bug ridden crap and let me continue with my life - if they know what's best for them they'll give apple a shot, otherwise, we'll fanboyism goes both ways I guess.

 

[Le Big Mac]

Who would buy it

Let's put aside whether it makes sense from Apple's overall strategy.

The question is would it sell?

I say no. People have windows for a number of reasons, the main one of which is that it's compatible with everything else, including a lot of software.
A business is not going to go out and buy OSX for its legacy PCs for teh same reason it doesn't buy Macs in the first place--their system has special software, hardware, etc. that runs with windows.

So you're left with consumers. If they have a PC already, why would they switch the OS? If they're in teh market for a new computer, then why not sell them the whole package?

 

[pianoman]

The real question is, if they were to license the OS out, and failed, could Apple still survive as a music company alone?

no. one of the greatest things about the iPod is how it has attracted many people to Apple's other hardware (which is how Apple makes most of its money). without the income from hardware sales, i don't believe Apple could stay afloat.

Boot Camp is doing the same thing. it is showing people how easy to use Macs are and getting them to switch to a machine that looks good and can run any program you want it to.

 

[bousozoku]

I wish I had a graphic of someone flogging a dead horse. Wait.. no I don't.

I think we need to kill the topic at the New Thread button, so it won't happen again. It wouldn't be censorship but mental health for the rest of us.

 

[yellow]

LOL.

This is an automated message:

The thread you have attempted to post is completely pointless.

Thank you for your continued participation.​

 

[GFLPraxis]

The consequence of NOT releasing OSX to PC:
Due to the technically issue discussed above, its not up to apple to decide if PC user CAN run OSX, apple release OSX to PC or not, its only a matter of time before the illegal migrate of OSX to PC platform, apple should grab the opportunity rather than regretting it afterwards.
The bundle of MAC machine and OSX is limiting the software availability and OSX market share.

Let me know what do you think about it

Mac OS X migrating to the PC platform illegally is limited, however. The fact is, as long as it requires significant (or even insignificant) hackwork on the part of the user, 90+% of users (if not more) will not use it. Let's be honest here- most consumers are NOT willing to put any work into downloading software illegally and hacking it. Most consumers will buy it off the shelf, and if they can't, they won't use it.