Lack of 'Mac' Branding Raises Questions

[benlee]

This scares me...

I don't think it is going to happen and I don't want it to happen

Why it won't happen (as many have said):

1) Apple is starting to make some great profits and the iPhone is only going to help that.

2) Their iPod and iPhone and iTunes are creating a Halo effect on their products allowing them to sell more of other hardware

3) It will take the intimate relationship that is the Mac and OS X.

4) OS X is Mac OS X or at least it was in October when I bought Leopard and my t-shirt said get a Mac for your Mac. However, I think the banners look really good because they say OS X_______. Could just be a designing decision for that (its called a nickname).

5) I will not let it happen

6) Apple is not going to take the risk and as others have said they would license "some" hardware to run the OS before they would release a version for all PCs. and I think we would get some rumors of this prior to 3 days before the keynote from a reading into a banner.

Don't add .mac because we all know that is likely because they are going to make the service available to windows users or .me is an outset to .mac.

7) Steve likes to stay i the niche that OS X is too good for PCs and so do I. (because it is). Although Apple uses the same materials as PCs do, PCs can use any combination of parts. Apple would sell a low low cost mini before they would give OS X (or any variation) to the PC world.

8) I am the fake fake Steve Jobs!

 

[Big Gulp]

7) Steve likes to stay i the niche that OS X is too good for PCs and so do I. (because it is). Although Apple uses the same materials as PCs do, PCs can use any combination of parts.

So Apple is too good for PC hardware, even though they use nothing but PC hardware, and the big problem with the PC hardware ecosystem is just that we have too damned much consumer choice and freedom?

Stop drinking the Kool-Aid, already. Steve Jobs isn't the messiah, and he doesn't care about you personally. He's a businessman.

 

[netnothing]

1. MAC Computers are high in Price.
2. Microsoft OS's are high in Price.
3. PC's are lower in Price (Compared to MACs)
4. MAC OS X is lower in price (compared to Vista)

Do the math. Don't you think a lot of people would chose the lower cost of both worlds?

How many PC's are out there compared to MACs?

How many manufactures of PC's would go for a lower cost OS?

I belong to the Microsoft Developers Network. This is the lowest priced way to run their Operating Systems on up to 10 Computers. And that costs $499 per year.

I could run OS X on up to 5 for only $199.

Again, do the math.

Linux based OS's, or the like, will run on many PC's.

Mac just has a great UI, and great prices, as far as an OS.
Yes, it is PC Hardware in a MAC case.

I own a Harley and those riders don't like to hear that some of the Harley parts are just as foreign, as the foreign named bikes.

So, not to make anyone angry, but who is holding their nose in the air? I'm not talking about foreign parts, but what MAC users think about PC users, and placing their precious OS on a PC along with believing that a MAC is made by Apple without anyone else's parts.

Are you kidding? Do you think Apple could get away with selling just OS X for $199 for a family pack to run on any old PC hardware?

There is a reason you can buy OS X for $129/$199....you have to buy the hardware first!

If Apple was just selling the software, it would be priced the same as Microsoft's.

-Kevin

 

[benlee]

So Apple is too good for PC hardware, even though they use nothing but PC hardware, and the big problem with the PC hardware ecosystem is just that we have too damned much consumer choice and freedom?

Stop drinking the Kool-Aid, already. Steve Jobs isn't the messiah, and he doesn't care about you personally. He's a businessman.

I didn't say that. I think OS X is too good to run on PCs. Why? because OS X is made to run on Macs...that is part of the reason why it is so stable and reliable.

Apple's software sells its hardware. Why would they want to sell other companies' hardware? It does not make sense. The relationship distinguishing Microsoft, Apple, and Linux are perfect living mates.

They will not make significantly more selling OS X to hardware companies and run the risk of making less. It would be a stupid stupid stupid idea...(especially at this moment in time) when there is nothing wrong with riding the iPhone wave.

 

[mac-er]

Well, this is about the most far out rumor I've heard so far.

In other words, NO. Not a snowball's chance in hell. I'll eat my hat.

Ahhhh...I remember when people said the exact same words about the transition to Intel.

 

[Anonymous Freak]

I don't see any reason why it would be necessary to drop PPC to allow for sales on third party hardware. That statement makes no sense by it self. You could argue that dropping PPC allows them to better focus their resources on the Intel platform. That I'd buy into.

Thank you. It took how many pages of comments for someone to say this? (I was surprised that it wasn't said earlier.)

There is nothing in "making it PC compatible" that would "necessitate" dropping PPC support. The entire "hackintosh" OSx86 ecosystem proves that.

 

[mikesown]

All these interpretations don't make sense! You're all reading too far into the taglines. The reason(the sole reason) why Apple is doing this is to create a `platform.' Apple is strengthening the halo effect of the iPod to get customers to buy computers. "Hey, my phone runs OS X, and so does this Mac. I like my iPhone, and I hate my PC. I'll get a Mac because I like OS X on my iPhone."

 

[ArtOfWarfare]

Okay... I don't actually have time to read through 231 posts so maybe I'm not the first one to have pointed this out...

but dropping the name Mac just because it runs on PCs now is dumb.

It's like saying you should drop the name Windows because it runs on Macs now...

...

OK... nevermind. Apple really has bound the OS to the computer... the computers are called Macs, the OS is called Mac. It's all Mac.

Mac (the computer) is to the PC as Mac (the OS) to Windows

 

[mixel]

Well, friend, I wasn't talking about applications on the Internet. In fact, I explicitly stated that I was talking about robust applications ON THE MOBILE DEVICES.

But it isn't such a stretch to imagine a wireless docking station sitting at home with your storage and display and connection devices. You'll be able to run your more power hungry apps at home while carrying around your device for low power needs.

I'm sorry that you lack the vision to see where the computer is heading. Just because it isn't there now doesn't mean it can't get there, fast. The future is mobile.

Firstly, the patronising tone seems a little misplaced. But - the creatives, content creators, print designers, video editors etc.. Need a machine more powerful than a handheld, and they always will. Media gets higher res, effects get more CPU intensive. *however* much faster mobile devices get, desktops and servers will be massively more-so, and just as necessary to a lot of people. Don't get me started on gaming either. Handhelds vs rigs - that'll fly. There are all sorts of paths tech could go down, but the "beefed up handheld UMPC-type thing for all with a docking station" one isn't exactly a safe bet.

Last week people were talking about multi-GB photoshop files. Desktops really aren't going anywhere. Microsoft's "PCs disguised as furniture" is more likely than your "handheld does it all" approach. Yes, everyone may end up with powerful handhelds, but they'll interface with much more powerful home machines. Someone steals your handheld supercomputer and you're screwed.

...

Though I do like your line of thinking. The newton was an amazingly do-everything device too. The idea of a little handheld in oppose to a real PC/Mac is interesting, but no single manufacturer can really pitch a handheld platform against a desktop one and be taken seriously, for good reason.

Like I said in my last post, I agree that business needs -- whether those offices are at home or work -- demand a computer, either laptop or desktop. But Apple decided long ago to break out of that niche and try to create a new consumer market.

Whether the computer survives or not, Apple sees its future increasingly in mobile devices.

Creativity of most types (digitally at least) requires a computer. It doesn't have to be a business thing. Apple haven't stopped doing "real" computers and aren't going to stop whilst they're making them so much money. Just because there's one market doesn't mean another will vanish.

 

[Shasterball]

If this isn't even a rumor, why post it here....

 

[syklee26]

Yeah, I'm sure the R&D costs are pretty minimal. Riiiiight.

obviously you don't know how to read. I said other than R&D costs it cost nothing to make.

 

[Tosser]

If this ever came trough - that we could buy it for a PC, that'd mean some of us could get some better hardware, say, a Lenovo. That would be great.

On the other hand, I think they're just dropping the "Mac" from the OS-name for the same reason they introduced it to every computer: To simplify and differentiate the software from the hardware.

 

[faroukabad]

I wish it was true, I'd love to build myself a mac perfectly tailored to my own needs, such as a gaming rig.

 

[Tosser]

I wish it was true, I'd love to build myself a mac perfectly tailored to my own needs, such as a gaming rig.

Come to think of it, the perfect mac for me would be something with a so-so grafics card, kick-ass audio card, huge fast HDD, and not necessarily an extremely fast CPU. That would be swell.

Now, if tis came through, we'd both be able to do what we wanted.

 

[Anuba]

I didn't say that. I think OS X is too good to run on PCs. Why? because OS X is made to run on Macs...that is part of the reason why it is so stable and reliable.

Oh god will you people stop it? You recite marketing slogans like they were bible quotes.

There is no unique magical mystery hardware inside a Mac. Gee, an Intel CPU, a Fujitsu hard drive, an NVidia or ATI video card, a Crystal sound chip, a Matshita DVD-R/W drive and an LCD screen from LG? Wow, why there's only about one billion PC owners with the same spec machines.

This "tight integration" nonsense is just smoke-and-mirrors these days. It's a generic PC under the hood and the integration isn't half as tight as it used to be back in the PPC days when Apple dictated the processor specs. Now they take whatever Intel will give them.

As for quality and reliability, it's mostly hit-and-miss due to Apple's penchant for radical enclosure designs. They make all these crazy and beautiful machines and rush them out to market, and sometimes they don't hold up in real-world tests. We all know what happened to the Cube (it cracked), the original iMac G5 20" had a failure percentage of 30% which must be some sort of world record, and there appear to be a lot of issues with cooling on the MBA. I'm an iMac 24" owner myself and I was one of the lucky ones who didn't have the infamous gradient problem, but thousands of others did.

Yes, Dell, IBM and HP make a lot of but ugly computers with boring design and creaky plastic enclosures, but they are durable. These companies can't afford to make models with a failure rate of 30% because A) they sell them in massive volumes, and B) they don't have adoring fans who are willing to forgive them just about anything.

 

[miggyb]

Here is my angle:

For Apple to make high-quality hardware, I think it's important to keep quantity in mind. That is, it's easier for them to make 100 perfectly functional and tested laptops than it is to make 100 million, etc.

By limiting their hardware sales, that is, purposely cannibalizing their own hardware sales, they'd be able to keep a high standard for quality control. It's hard to imagine a company like Dell giving importance to the little things, like how the cables are tied when put into packaging.

While everyone is thrilled that Apple is becoming a bigger player by the minute, there are still complaints about the quality of apple products lowering.

I guess the question is, can Apple make Alienware computers, high-end, customizable computers that at the same time have "nothing special," and still win?

If the answer is yes, then they'd magically gain more market share, kill windows vista (to some extent), and keep their hardware a high quality, all in one swift ballerina-like move.

Sorry if this a repeat of what someone else has said, but I didn't have time to read everyone's post.

 

[Anuba]

Here is my angle:

For Apple to make high-quality hardware, I think it's important to keep quantity in mind. That is, it's easier for them to make 100 perfectly functional and tested laptops than it is to make 100 million, etc.

By limiting their hardware sales, that is, purposely cannibalizing their own hardware sales, they'd be able to keep a high standard for quality control. It's hard to imagine a company like Dell giving importance to the little things, like how the cables are tied when put into packaging.

While everyone is thrilled that Apple is becoming a bigger player by the minute, there are still complaints about the quality of apple products lowering.

I guess the question is, can Apple make Alienware computers, high-end, customizable computers that at the same time have "nothing special," and still win?

If the answer is yes, then they'd magically gain more market share, kill windows vista (to some extent), and keep their hardware a high quality, all in one swift ballerina-like move.

Sorry if this a repeat of what someone else has said, but I didn't have time to read everyone's post.

Yeah...

Their market share is huge in the high-end segment, but in order to put the death grip on Vista they need much better penetration in the entry-level/consumer segment, and MacBook + Mac Mini just aren't going to do it for them. And the MacBook is just like a consumer grade Dell or HP on the inside anyway; Intel Core 2 Duo with Intel X3100 graphics = entry-level Dell Inspiron, but at twice the price. Casual web surfer Joe Blow just doesn't care if OS X craps gold nuggets, he just isn't gonna pay two computers' worth (or six, because he's getting one for himself and one for each of his kids). Meanwhile the MacBook is eating away at MacBook Pro sales; I see a loooot of people in print and web agencies who use MacBooks, and these guys don't care about the pricetag -- they just think the MBP 15.4" is too big to lug around and the MBA is too weak. So what if Apple were to bump up the MB to Pro status, slap an aluminium enclosure on it and let it fill the vacant spot of the PB G4 12", drop the Mac Mini completely, and let Dell or HP or whoever take over the consumer/entry-level segment? This would broaden the OS X market share greatly while reinforcing Apple's image as a high-end luxury brand, and all those college kids who will be running around with their plastic OS X Dell notebooks will get a real Mac when they get their own paycheck. And Apple will no longer have to bother with competing in segments where the margins are tighter than a nun's .........

 

[gehrbox]

No way is Apple going to make a PC version of OS X.

Apple is a hardware company. They leverage OS X to sell this hardware. If you give away the unique offerings the incentive to pay a premium to use it goes away. When Apple licensed clones to run Mac OS it nearly killed the company. It was not the single reason, but was a large part of it. One of Steve's first steps when he got back in control was to stop the licensing to the clone makers.

The lack of "Mac" posted all over the WWDC indicates that Apples now got its eggs in several baskets and wanted the WWDC to reflect this diversity.

 

[Anuba]

No way is Apple going to make a PC version of OS X.

Apple is a hardware company. They leverage OS X to sell this hardware. If you give away the unique offerings the incentive to pay a premium to use it goes away. When Apple licensed clones to run Mac OS it nearly killed the company. It was not the single reason, but was a large part of it. One of Steve's first steps when he got back in control was to stop the licensing to the clone makers.

The lack of "Mac" posted all over the WWDC indicates that Apples now got its eggs in several baskets and wanted the WWDC to reflect this diversity.

Let's just assume for a minute that Apple really, really want to challenge Windows in a serious battle for Most Popular OS in the world. Not just 5%, 10%, 15% or even 25% but to push it over the magical 50% line. After all, there are lots of benefits that come with it, such as hundreds of thousands of companies around the world lining up around the block to create hardware and software supporting your platform.

Let's also assume that they've come to road's end. They've tried the Switch campaigns and the Mac vs PC Guy ads, they've moved to Intel, they've tried the iPod/iPhone halo effect, they've tried the BYOKM Mac Mini and they've tried Boot Camp. And while they have indeed made some progress, they are still nowhere near worrying Ballmer and his goons. How much further can you get with your own hardware? If you add more cheap machines to your lineup, the already converted will go for those too and you lose sales in the high-end segment.

There's also the individualism factor. A growing challenge for car companies is that the more popular a model gets, the more of it ends up in the streets. People were fine with that in the 1970s, but today they avoid conformism like the plague. Ask Britons if they can bear the sight of another Mini Cooper and they'll projectile vomit in your face. People want to live under the illusion that they're special, they want coeds and coworkers to gather around them and watch them show off their latest gadget. And due to Apple's rather meagre range of models and options (oooh, you can have a black OR white MacBook?) you'll only feel special as long as Apple users are a small minority. "Ooooh, you have an iPod? Excuse me while I die of boredom." The day Apple reaches a 50% market share with the one-size-fits-all iPhone, users will no longer feel special, they'll feel like communists -- the company that once broke out of the apocalyptic 1984-esque vision will end up being the company that put us in 1984. Think Same.

No, in order to make it past the 50% threshold they'll have to let OS X free from its hardware shackles. And once they have 50% they can detonate the halo effect timebomb and announce that they are dropping Windows support for iPod, iPhone, iTunes, Safari, AppleTV, Mobile Me and QuickTime.

Snow Leopard = Leopard Running on a White Box?

It already runs on white boxes, as Apple is just about the only company that's made white computers in the last 5 years. PCs have been black and/or silver forever. Beige PCs died out about two years after Mac G3 went from beige to blue.

Perhaps the 'snow' part is a tongue-in-cheek reference to leaving PPC users out in the cold...!

Funny, I had a picture of the Advertisement that was very similar.

That's a good one! Personally I pictured PC sporting lenses, loose-fitting casual clothes and a Mac Guy wig, while Mac wears glasses, slicked-back hair and a beige suit because he happens to be running in BootCamp mode.

 

[gctwnl]

TheAppleBlog raises a question that has been on the minds of many this evening regarding the notable lack of "Mac" branding on WWDC banners. Their conclusion? Is Apple planning on distributing OS X to computers other than Macs?

iPhone runs OS X and AppleTV runs OS X

There is no need for a PC-version of OS X. I also find it very unlikely that this is going to happen. NeXT tried to do this when they shipped NEXTSTEP for x86 (and sparc and hppa), NEXTSTEP = Mac OS X 0.7 or so.

Apple makes it money selling brilliantly designed hardware. They sell it via brilliant software. Even iTunes is mainly there to sell iPods and iPhones.

Adding generic PC's to that list only gives Apple a driver and pirating nightmare. They may license OS X to other hardware vendors, but I would not expect a generic software package to be sold over the counter to be installed on generic PCs.

 

[combatcolin]

Time for a massive step change?

GIMME GIMME GIMME GIMME GIMME....repeat as required.

With Vista "flying off the shelves" Apple could do some real damage to Microsoft with OS X for PC's.

 

[BenK01]

If Apple wanted to cut into the current windows market, running Windows compatible software natively in Mac OS would be more likely, but getting away from a lot of that software is a big reason people buy Macs in the first place.

 

[benlee]

Oh god will you people stop it? You recite marketing slogans like they were bible quotes.

There is no unique magical mystery hardware inside a Mac. Gee, an Intel CPU, a Fujitsu hard drive, an NVidia or ATI video card, a Crystal sound chip, a Matshita DVD-R/W drive and an LCD screen from LG? Wow, why there's only about one billion PC owners with the same spec machines.

This "tight integration" nonsense is just smoke-and-mirrors these days. It's a generic PC under the hood and the integration isn't half as tight as it used to be back in the PPC days when Apple dictated the processor specs. Now they take whatever Intel will give them.

As for quality and reliability, it's mostly hit-and-miss due to Apple's penchant for radical enclosure designs. They make all these crazy and beautiful machines and rush them out to market, and sometimes they don't hold up in real-world tests. We all know what happened to the Cube (it cracked), the original iMac G5 20" had a failure percentage of 30% which must be some sort of world record, and there appear to be a lot of issues with cooling on the MBA. I'm an iMac 24" owner myself and I was one of the lucky ones who didn't have the infamous gradient problem, but thousands of others did.

Yes, Dell, IBM and HP make a lot of but ugly computers with boring design and creaky plastic enclosures, but they are durable. These companies can't afford to make models with a failure rate of 30% because A) they sell them in massive volumes, and B) they don't have adoring fans who are willing to forgive them just about anything.

Yes but Apple's hardware has only slight variations in the hardware they use and they have control over that hardware and release updates as needed when new hardware comes out. It would take too much work to do that if all the generic PCs in the world were to run OS X. There is a tight integration of the hardware and software and it does account for something. Yes they use the same parts as PCs, but only particular variations of that hardware that they have complete control over.

 

[MacPhilosopher]

Bingo!!!

Yeah, right.

Has anyone bothered to look at Apple's financials? Exactly where do they make the overwhelming majority of their money, I'll give you a hint, it 'aint OSX sales. It's hardware, they use their software to pump a lot of high margin hardware. All those folks who are flooding Apple Stores in droves are now going to be given the opportunity to flock down to the Dell or HP area in nearly every large retailer to purchase similar but cheaper hardware, no, I don't think so either. Apple exposing themselves to possible hardware price wars, no, I don't think so.

Others have mentioned the more obvious explanations for the various points of "evidence", so I won't repeat them.

You'll see licensed Mac "clones" way before you'll see OSX running on standard PC's.

bitWrangler nailed it. I agree 100%

 

[Anuba]

Yes but Apple's hardware has only slight variations in the hardware they use and they have control over that hardware and release updates as needed when new hardware comes out. It would take too much work to do that if all the generic PCs in the world were to run OS X.

Right, but as many of us keep saying, it doesn't have to follow the Windows model where you can buy it with or without a computer. There could be heavy restrictions, it could be exclusive to certain brands etc.

Just look at the iPhone business model for example. No subsidies allowed, restricted to one carrier per country, revenue-sharing -- these are ideas that never crossed minds over at Nokia, SonyEricsson and Motorola, the "Microsofts" of cellphones. If Apple were to make OS X for PCs you can be sure that they will have thought up some weird rules with no precedent.

Of course this wouldn't prevent people from trying to install pirated copies of OS X on generic PCs, but they would be no more successful than the brave Hackintosh PC souls who are already doing that...