How will you react to Apple releasing Mac OS X for PCs?

Discussion in 'macOS' started by iAppleseed, May 6, 2012.

?

What would be your reaction to Apple releasing Mac OS X for PCs?

  1. MY GOD! BAD IDEA! NO, NO, NO, NO, NO!

    31.8%
  2. Great! This is Great! Wonderful news!

    31.8%
  3. Meh.

    20.5%
  4. Apple is starting to fall apart...

    15.9%
  1. iAppleseed macrumors regular

    Joined:
    May 11, 2011
    #1
    Imagine that the day has come, Mac OS X is available for Dells, Lenovo, Acers, Alienwares, Vaios, and other PCs. Games and apps will eventually be developed for Mac OS X due to larger audience.

    Do you think this will be a good idea for Apple? Will you feel bad about not being unique anymore? Will you be happy for others who can't afford a Mac?
     
  2. old-wiz macrumors G3

    Joined:
    Mar 26, 2008
    Location:
    West Suburban Boston Ma
    #2
    Not going to happen. Apple is a hardware company. Why would Apple do this anyway? They make their profits from selling hardware.
     
  3. NewbieCanada macrumors 68030

    Joined:
    Oct 9, 2007
    #3
    I'm sure Apple is going to develop drivers for thousands of video cards, motherboards, processors etc so they can sell a more copies of a $30 operating system while cutting their hardware sales by 90%.

    Afterwards they can follow up with IOS for Android and really throw the company away.
     
  4. Fishrrman, May 6, 2012
    Last edited: Jul 28, 2012

    Fishrrman macrumors G4

    Joined:
    Feb 20, 2009
    #4
    "Not going to happen. Apple is a hardware company. Why would Apple do this anyway? They make their profits from selling hardware."

    You're an "old" wiz, so you have a long memory, as do I.

    Think back several years ago, to, say, 2004.

    Back then, there were rumors that since the beginning of OS X (which was still a PowerPC OS at the time), Apple had under development a "parallel OS", capable of running on Intel hardware.

    Apple vehemently denied such rumors -- no such OS existed, said they!

    And then, what happened in 2006? Well, Apple announced that due to limitations in the PowerPC platform, they were going to move their entire hardware architecture to (ohmigosh!) .... INTEL!

    And at the same time, they said they ALREADY HAD (shouting intentional) a version of the Mac OS -for- Intel, and offered developers working Intel-based platforms to do their development on!

    So, what about those previous "rumors" and "denials"?

    Being an old wiz, do you remember the name "Ron Ziegler", who was Richard Nixon's press secretary? Who, during the Watergate scandal, came out to the White House briefing room one day, and pronounced that all his -previous- statements had become "inoperative"?

    Having written that, I'm not sure if Apple would or would not at some point in the future decide to release a version of the Mac OS "for PCs". Although their reluctance to update the Mac Pro line is telling, as if they don't have the interest to support that portion of the market any longer. It is obvious, though, that the Mac Pro line isn't a big "profit generator" for them any more. One wonders how much longer the entire Mac "desktop line" will be, as well, given the explosive growth of Apple's business in the iPhone and iPad markets (and the higher profit ratios those products generate). EDIT: in the same context, could Apple be trending away from being a "computer company" and into a "telephone and communications" company?

    Because of the wide variety of hardware in the PC world, it would be impossible for Apple to simply release a "generic Mac OS" and expect it to work on most PC's without problems -- tech support would be a nightmare.

    I -could- see Apple striking some kind of deal with a few PC hardware makers, to produce "Apple-compliant" packages that could run the Mac OS (just as the "hackintosh folks" are doing right now on their own). Some might say, "that's going back to 'Mac clones', and that concept failed for Apple in the past!" Yes, it did, but it wasn't the problem of the clone makers (I owned a couple of SuperMacs that were nice computers), but of Apple, for letting the clone-makers get the better of them, design-wise.

    Apple could do it again, and do it properly this time -- particularly if they don't feel like building Mac Pro's for the high-end market.

    I'm not saying Apple will definitely offer a "generic Mac OS".
    I AM saying that it might be within the realm of possibility. If not now, perhaps at some time in the future....
     
  5. gumblecosby macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Jun 22, 2010
    #5
    They already tried this in the 90's. The OS may be more popular now compared to then but the company has changed its ways of doing things since the 90's .

    It wants total control of hardware and software. They get preferential treatment from Intel and design their own ARM chips. They cut out old apis from newer OS's. They depend on less 3rd party companies now compared to 8 or 9 years ago. ex, The systems preferences panel was written in java in early mac os x. Now its an optional install.

    Their current goal does not include licensing out the OS.

    Ignore the stupid title on the video. This is steve jobs talking about how he believes in hardware and software working together. It seems to be their current strategy still today.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FF-tKLISfPE&feature=related
     
  6. fhall1 macrumors 68040

    fhall1

    Joined:
    Dec 18, 2007
    Location:
    (Central) NY State of mind
  7. iAppleseed thread starter macrumors regular

    Joined:
    May 11, 2011
    #7
    I know they won't, I'm just asking what your reaction would be it they did.
     
  8. Cezar` macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Jul 27, 2012
    #8
    They might...

    look at the name of the OS now :)
    Mountain Lion is called, "OS X Mountain Lion" while all previous versions started with "Mac". So... You never know.
     
  9. toke lahti macrumors 68000

    Joined:
    Apr 23, 2007
    Location:
    Helsinki, Finland
    #9
    Their current goal is to make as much money as possible. If they can make more money by licensing osX out, they'll do it.

    Like you said, the company has changed from 90's, so something they screwed up in 90's, could be done right this time.

    Macs are beginning to be so small part of Apple, that sooner or later they won't care about them anymore. They can't make osX as walled as iOS, so they just might split the osX company out and start making iOS laptops (=ipad with keyborad and without fingerprints on the screen) and tv's (=formely known as iMac).

    Other scenario might be that macs became so popular that they have to split the company because anti-trust laws.
    Steve was so good speaker, that one could forget that there are other workable solutions. You can build os to a specific computer even if there are two companies. Nothing has to change here, other than os could also be used in general pc hardware. Customer can choose; hardware that is especially made for this os and vice versa for a bit higher price
    OR
    generic pc hardware, which is not so optimized for the os, but much more customizable.
     
  10. Mr. Retrofire macrumors 601

    Mr. Retrofire

    Joined:
    Mar 2, 2010
    Location:
    www.emiliana.cl/en
    #10
    OS X is software, not hardware.

    OS X does not run on the best selling hardware. iOS runs on this hardware.

    I'm sure they can sell more OS X licenses and increase their profits, if they release OS X for standard PCs.

    Btw, Tiger, Leopard, Snow Leopard, Lion and Mountain Lion run already on standard PC-hardware, including VM-solutions from Oracle, Parallels and VMware.

    ----------

    Dell, HP, Lenovo (IBM) hardware with OS X? Sounds too good to be true. ;-)
     
  11. old-wiz macrumors G3

    Joined:
    Mar 26, 2008
    Location:
    West Suburban Boston Ma
    #11
    OF course OSx is software, I worked 40 years in operating system internals. Apple wants to make money selling hardware and OSx is just part of the package.

    Why should apple go to the hassle of trying to support a gazillion hardware configurations of "standard PCs"? A lot of the Windows problems come from having to support Thor only knows how many weird devices that people expect the OS to support.

    Just because you can run OSx on some regular PC hardware doesn't make it legal or give Apple any reason to sell OSx.

    If you would review the history of Apple, they tried doing that once and nearly wrecked the company.

    There is zero possibility for Apple to sell OSx without the hardware. There is no reason for them to do so. They wouldn't make as much money if they sold OSx without the hardware.
     
  12. Mr. Retrofire macrumors 601

    Mr. Retrofire

    Joined:
    Mar 2, 2010
    Location:
    www.emiliana.cl/en
    #12
    OS X with the appropriate hardware is not Apples cash cow:

    [​IMG]
     
  13. SlCKB0Y macrumors 68040

    SlCKB0Y

    Joined:
    Feb 25, 2012
    Location:
    Sydney, Australia
    #13
    Their revenue was 35 billion in that quarter. 15% of that is not something Apple is just going to throw away nor risk.

    Apple are selling more Macs now than they ever have before, it's just that revenue from their mobile devices has grown at an insane rate.
     
  14. toke lahti macrumors 68000

    Joined:
    Apr 23, 2007
    Location:
    Helsinki, Finland
    #14
    Apple has a habit in killing its products that are not selling nearly as good as their best sellers (17", 30", xserve, xraid, shake, etc.).

    I wouldn't be surprised if they drop osx away for good.
    They'd have higher walls of their garden with iOS laptops and desktops, oh well, hardly no-one was buying them anymore...

    Worst case scenario is that they drop osx, but instead of selling it or splitting it from Apple, they just kill it and try to make their best that no-one would use it anymore.
     
  15. theluggage macrumors 68030

    Joined:
    Jul 29, 2011
    #15
    But why would they make more money selling it for PCs?

    The bulk of MS's profits come from selling an astronomical number of licenses to large PC makers (Dell, HP etc) and bulk licenses to big corporate computer users. How much they pay is not public knowledge, but common sense dictates that it's a lot less than the $100 (ballpark) for a one-off OEM license or retail upgrade. The "full retail" versions carry a bigger mark-up, but about the only people who buy those are Mac users since its the only legit way to get Windows for BootCamp or Parallels.

    That's not a lot of money per PC - MS thrives because they get a relatively small income from more or less every PC sold.

    Price-wise, Apple would have to compete with Windows - but they'd only sell a fraction of the number of licenses that MS shifts.

    ...but people would flock to buy cheap laptops and mini-towers running OSX, wouldn't they? Well, the problem is that they wouldn't be that cheap: Every time Dell or someone has offered a Linux-based PC it has come out at the same price, or even more expensive than their comparable Windows PCs - and Linux is free (of course, there will be some costs involved but probably not a per-machine license fee). Why? Well, at a guess:

    1. The really cheap PCs are made by throwing together cheap, commodity parts - because everything works with Windows you can use whatever is going cheap this month. OSX or Linux don't have that universal support, so you start having to use specific, probably more expensive, parts.

    2. Rumour has it that the big boys pay Windows licenses for every machine they sell and/or that MS hikes the license price if they sell non-windows machines. So, basically, you're still paying for Windows even if you have a different OS.

    3. PC builders get paid for installing adware and demos on their system. Not very Apple.

    Then, someone has to sell these more-expensive-than-Windows OSX PCs to punters - and there's nothing more futile than trying to get a sales force trained to sell Brand X to start selling Brand Y instead.

    You know how its going to go: Customer: "Can I do my home accounts on OS X?" SalesDrone: "Oh, you might be better off on Windows." Customer: "Can I read my Exchange email from work?" SalesDroid: "No, you'll need Windows". Customer: "What games are available?" Salesdroid: "There aren't many games for OS X". Why should SalesDroid worry what OS the punter chooses? They make ******* all money on selling entry-level PCs - the important thing is to sell them a credit agreement, extended warranty and a $50 HDMI cable - that's what gets them the bonus.

    No, sorry, these "cheap OEM Macs" ain't gonna happen - what you'll get is makers offering MacBookPro-alikes and iMac-alikes just undercutting the genuine articles by $100 or so to poach Apple customers but making no particular effort to open up new markets. That's what happened last time Apple tried licensing the OS.

    No, Apple have found the best way to survive in a Windows dominated world: sell premium-priced laptops and small-form-factor systems with nice high margins, preferably from your own retail chains or "store-in-a-store" outlets with Mac-knowledgable staff - and use the cool-looking hardware to sell the software. Helpfully, most of the other manufacturers seem completely incapable of producing anything that doesn't look like a bucket of spare parts alongside a Mac, even if its technically better (its the "minimalism" thing - they just can't resist an extra bit of chrome, a bank of indicator lights, a plastering of stickers...)
     
  16. Mr. Retrofire macrumors 601

    Mr. Retrofire

    Joined:
    Mar 2, 2010
    Location:
    www.emiliana.cl/en
    #16
    If Dell, HP and Lenovo sell OS X compatible hardware (they do it already, see insanelymac.com), then Apple can sell licenses for OS X to Dell, HP and Lenovo or directly to the customers. These manufacturers have a much larger market share.
     
  17. SlCKB0Y macrumors 68040

    SlCKB0Y

    Joined:
    Feb 25, 2012
    Location:
    Sydney, Australia
    #17
    Firstly, with the exception of the 17" MBP, none of those things were core business.

    Also, those things were selling poorly as a very small subset of an area with represents 15% of revenue which means that overall they contributed almost nothing to overall revenue. The problem is that server products have a disproportionately high cost to develop.

    Anyways, I can't see Apple dropping their consumer computer range anytime soon and for a company of their size their product range would have to be the smallest of any IT company even in their current state.
     
  18. ixodes macrumors 601

    ixodes

    Joined:
    Jan 11, 2012
    Location:
    Pacific Coast, USA
    #18
    Of all possible "what if" scenarios in the Apple Universe, this is the one that is not going to happen. Not tomorrow, not next month, year, or ever.
     
  19. lulla01 macrumors 68020

    lulla01

    Joined:
    Jul 13, 2007
    Location:
    U.S
  20. toke lahti macrumors 68000

    Joined:
    Apr 23, 2007
    Location:
    Helsinki, Finland
    #20
    If 17" was their core business and other products killed in last decade aren't, can you define their core business?

    14% of Apple's revenue comes from Macs.
    Care to suggest in what percentage Apple would decide Macs (with osX) being out of their core business?
     
  21. SlCKB0Y macrumors 68040

    SlCKB0Y

    Joined:
    Feb 25, 2012
    Location:
    Sydney, Australia
    #21
    Just wait a second, you're taking what I said out of context and I think you know that. I was making the point that high end server products were never their core business - I did not mention the 17" MBP.

    The dropping of the 17" MBP simply represented Apple dropping a relatively poorly selling laptop. I also suspect that they decided that the release of the 15" rMBP would further cannibalise the 17" sales. There are plenty of examples of Apple dropping products which do not perform well or ones which they wish to consolidate into other lines - Eg, eMac vs. iMac.

    That is not something I can answer. What I will say is that regardless of the percentage of overall revenue, as long as Macs are selling better than they ever have in the history of the company and Macs are required for iOS development they will not be going anywhere.
     
  22. theluggage macrumors 68030

    Joined:
    Jul 29, 2011
    #22
    A lot of that market share is the business/corporate market in which Apple has never been successful (although they've now found a back door with mobile devices). If you just look at consumer/retail/soho sales (where Apple are concentrating their effort) then Apple has a very healthy market share indeed.

    All the PCs that Dell, HP, Lenovo et. al. sell come with MS Windows included. - what makes you think that people would want to pay extra for a different OS? As I said previously, all the evidence from these companies' attempts to sell Linux machines is that it would cost extra and that the companies wouldn't have any particular incentive to promote it.

    You are gambling on the existence of a huge army of people who want OS X but are never going to buy a Mac.

    It would have to be a huge army because Apple would need to sell an awful lot of $50 OS X licences via retailers/distributors to make as much as they do from selling one $2000 computer + accessories/upgrades + AppleCare through their own retail chain.

    The only thing guaranteed is that some people currently buying Macs, with an investment in OS X, would buy a cheaper Dell instead if it were offered. That would lose Apple money.

    The trouble is, the days in which Apple's OS had a huge, clear technical advantage over Microsoft's offerings are long gone. Windows 7 is actually pretty good. Windows 8 will probably be popular with Apple's consumer target market, even if it annoys pros and corporates.

    I use OSX because (a) I like having Unix under the hood (not a mass market selling point) and (b) because I like Apple hardware (which is expensive but not, when you compare like-with-like, necessarily overpriced).
     
  23. toke lahti, Aug 1, 2012
    Last edited: Aug 1, 2012

    toke lahti macrumors 68000

    Joined:
    Apr 23, 2007
    Location:
    Helsinki, Finland
    #23
    I'll bet when osx-macs are less than 5% AND there are iOS laptops available.
    They can still keep one "developer mac" on sale for developers. (Pretty much same thing that they still sell FCS to big corporations.)
    I think it's highly prbable that this will happen in about 5 years from now.
     
  24. SlCKB0Y, Aug 1, 2012
    Last edited: Aug 1, 2012

    SlCKB0Y macrumors 68040

    SlCKB0Y

    Joined:
    Feb 25, 2012
    Location:
    Sydney, Australia
    #24
    Huh? Why would they do this?

    Anyways, given what Android is doing to the iPhone market share right now and what could happen to their iPad market share with Android and Windows 8, I would bet that the revenue percentage on iPhone will normalise back to more sane levels within the next 3 years.

    An example of a major change which recently occurred in Apples revenue sources can be seen in the iPod. Just 6 years ago, iPod accounted for 55% of revenue and now it is almost dead:
    http://www.appleinsider.com/articles/10/07/02/special_report_the_end_of_apples_ipod_era.html
     
  25. SlCKB0Y macrumors 68040

    SlCKB0Y

    Joined:
    Feb 25, 2012
    Location:
    Sydney, Australia
    #25
    I'd also like to hear your opinion of how the Apple retail stores will work under your prediction. Apple is currently undergoing very fast expansion of the number of their retail stores they have...for example, I think there are something like 7 stores in Sydney alone (where I live) and nearly 400 worldwide.

    A lot of the Apple stores around the world have been secured on long term leases, occupying very large spaces in very expensive prime locations.

    Let's say your prediction is true, Apple drops all Mac products within 5 years. Imagine those very large Apple stores, now minus the large amount of space required for the Mac displays, take away the shelves of software and the shelves of peripherals. Remove half of the staff and some of the genius bars.

    So, I walk into one of these large stores in 5 years time, which cost Apple a bundle to secure leases for, setup and maintain. But now the place is either 2/3rds empty, with a few display tables for the iPhones and iPads, or else they what?? Just put wall-to-wall iPhone and iPad displays?

    Or do they just close them down after having spent millions setting them up?

    I am actually curious to know how the retail stores will work under your prediction....
     

Share This Page