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.
Lack of 'Mac' Branding Raises Questions
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
to all the people that fear that osx opened for pcs would mean the end of apple hardware is silly. Look at Lenovo and thinkpads. Lenovo is basically the apple of pc laptops. Very high quality for a very high price. Just b\c they are more expensive than the competition doesn't mean that no one buys them...just the opposite. Sure Dell and HP outsell them..but they make plenty of money at it.
Just offering a perspective, not yet my firm opinion:
Now, the iPhone has as much potential of being a "gateway product" to the Mac platform as the iPod was (and maybe still is). While it's obvious that the average Windows user can sync their iTunes library to their iPhone, they don't benefit from the sort of integration with other software (Address Book, iCal, etc.). But what if you were able to acquire that improved user experience not by buying an entirely new computer, but merely changing operating system? It would remove a huge obstacle for a lot of people, I'm sure... if not from the perspective from "saving money", then at least from being able to pick what hardware they run. Whatever Apple doesn't gain in hardware sales (and perhaps even loses), would at least be partially offset by much-increased software sales. Surely it costs a fortune to keep hardware competitive with their generic-box brethren, but with a software product gaining market share, they update it once, and it's available to millions (at a price, of course).
Additionally, seeing Apple's commitment to expanding the iPhone platform (and possibly ultra-portables in general), there may be one more reason to allow OS X on generic hardware: right now, if you want to program software for the iPhone, you need to be running:
-OS X 10.5.2 or higher
-on an Intel processor (currently, only Intel-based Macs)
This would open the platform to a whole new pool of developers, and likely win over many from competing mobile platforms.
Besides, it's more exposure for a platform that has millions of devoted users, and even more millions of nay-sayers. Right now, the only competition for Windows on generic boxes is Linux, which only a small percentage of people would bother to explore... In a way, this would make OS X the more attractive option by default, and with its better architecture from the ground up, will have but a fraction of the problems that currently plagues Windows users.
Now, the iPhone has as much potential of being a "gateway product" to the Mac platform as the iPod was (and maybe still is). While it's obvious that the average Windows user can sync their iTunes library to their iPhone, they don't benefit from the sort of integration with other software (Address Book, iCal, etc.). But what if you were able to acquire that improved user experience not by buying an entirely new computer, but merely changing operating system? It would remove a huge obstacle for a lot of people, I'm sure... if not from the perspective from "saving money", then at least from being able to pick what hardware they run. Whatever Apple doesn't gain in hardware sales (and perhaps even loses), would at least be partially offset by much-increased software sales. Surely it costs a fortune to keep hardware competitive with their generic-box brethren, but with a software product gaining market share, they update it once, and it's available to millions (at a price, of course).
Additionally, seeing Apple's commitment to expanding the iPhone platform (and possibly ultra-portables in general), there may be one more reason to allow OS X on generic hardware: right now, if you want to program software for the iPhone, you need to be running:
-OS X 10.5.2 or higher
-on an Intel processor (currently, only Intel-based Macs)
This would open the platform to a whole new pool of developers, and likely win over many from competing mobile platforms.
Besides, it's more exposure for a platform that has millions of devoted users, and even more millions of nay-sayers. Right now, the only competition for Windows on generic boxes is Linux, which only a small percentage of people would bother to explore... In a way, this would make OS X the more attractive option by default, and with its better architecture from the ground up, will have but a fraction of the problems that currently plagues Windows users.
Yeah, I know... gaping hole in the product line there. Apple must think that the iMac is all the desktop that consumers will ever need. Personally I need a tower for music production but I'm not going to pay $4050 for a Mac Pro (that's the starting price in Apple Store Sweden, my config would probably be around $5000-5500), so I'm sticking with Windows until Apple has anything to offer "prosumers". Currently they cater only to David and Goliath and nobody inbetween.
Ah, and I take it that you find "Error code -23" crystal clear? (It means "Requested read/write permission doesn't match driver's open permission"). I got another one of those error codes last week when I was trying to mount a network drive, and like everyone else who can't remember some 30,000 error codes I had to visit AppleErrorCodes.com and look it up. Is it too much to ask that they add a few kilobytes of text strings so that the system can tell you in plain English what the problem is?
No, that's not cryptic at all, it's just uninformative and stupid. Uninformative because it leaves you none the wiser as to what happened, and stupid because the only thing it tells you is the one thing you already know. Yes, it has quit, and yes it was unexpected. Applause. Duuhhhhhh.
Yes, that's actually quite the breakthrough, considering their history of lukewarm interest in anything relating to crash handling. "[Application] has unexpectedly quit" must have been there since the days when the Mac was beige and had a 9" monochrome screen.
Sure they/we do. iTunes for Windows will sync up mail, contacts, calendar, photo library and browser favorites with iPhone or iPod Touch. It's a tad weird to do it via a media player application, but that's another story.
I doubt this will happen, but this would be great news! I wouldn't mind getting a cheap dell to replace my aging g4 tower to compliment my macbook pro. And when it comes time to replace my mbp i'll have more options! No need to wait for hardware refreshes or going on rumor sites to time my new buy. 
There is no substantial reason to believe that Apple would make such a move.
In fact, as things stand now, why would they? All this speculation is ignoring the issue at hand. Sales of Macs seem to be rising, brand awareness of the Mac is also rising. If Apple would ditch the counter-productive ads currently running, and just focus on the sleek, attractive, functional aspect of the Mac, they'd see even more sales. That's my opinion, and I have a lot of reasons for thinking it.
Make Macs the new designer computer, and people will eat 'em up. Continue to make it a Mac VS PC issue, and people will forever defend and find reasons to keep using PCs. For most people, the relatively marginal price increase with a Mac is worth the beauty, the sleekness, the style, and the status. And, lots of people can afford it, because anyone buying a new computer is probably not strapped for cash, and another $100-250 wouldn't break the bank for them. High school and college students excepting!
In fact, as things stand now, why would they? All this speculation is ignoring the issue at hand. Sales of Macs seem to be rising, brand awareness of the Mac is also rising. If Apple would ditch the counter-productive ads currently running, and just focus on the sleek, attractive, functional aspect of the Mac, they'd see even more sales. That's my opinion, and I have a lot of reasons for thinking it.
Make Macs the new designer computer, and people will eat 'em up. Continue to make it a Mac VS PC issue, and people will forever defend and find reasons to keep using PCs. For most people, the relatively marginal price increase with a Mac is worth the beauty, the sleekness, the style, and the status. And, lots of people can afford it, because anyone buying a new computer is probably not strapped for cash, and another $100-250 wouldn't break the bank for them. High school and college students excepting!
not going to lie here, but, being short on money here, has lead to be unable to purchase apple hardware, so I was forced into another root, OSX86. And its stable, and nice
So if apple released a version of osx for the avg pc, but it may never happen, unless they sell the os for $3-400 they will be loosing money
So nice rumor, but not happnin any time soon
(and my os is legit, I could fork out 180, but not a grand, and plus next year when I graduate I am buying A top of the line mbp, so they will get their money)
So if apple released a version of osx for the avg pc, but it may never happen, unless they sell the os for $3-400 they will be loosing money
So nice rumor, but not happnin any time soon
(and my os is legit, I could fork out 180, but not a grand, and plus next year when I graduate I am buying A top of the line mbp, so they will get their money)
Many OS X fans are fans precisely because they struggled with Windows for years, myself included.
I believe most of them would be willing to put up with a few problems in order to get OS X on a regular PC. Not that most of them WOULD do it, but they'd probably be willing to deal with a few issues in order to have the OS X experience with the hardware of their choosing.
Because of that, there would be a clear loss of sales in many respects for Apple. Would it increase sales in the end? I don't necessarily think so. Why make such a move, then?
I believe most of them would be willing to put up with a few problems in order to get OS X on a regular PC. Not that most of them WOULD do it, but they'd probably be willing to deal with a few issues in order to have the OS X experience with the hardware of their choosing.
Because of that, there would be a clear loss of sales in many respects for Apple. Would it increase sales in the end? I don't necessarily think so. Why make such a move, then?
Yes, but on the other hand Apple are gradually losing a part of their brand identity as their market share increases. Apple are strongly associated with individuality, but that association goes right down the toilet once everybody owns a Mac.
Let's face it, a big part of the Apple culture revolves around belonging to a small, exclusive club where members secretly fashion themselves as the MENSA of computer buyers, and shudder at the notion of common Windoze riff-raff stampeding around their secret garden yelling "OMG LOLZ I'm so L334 I 2 have a Mac!"
Apple have been able to limit their product line to a handful of models because they've been operating against a vast backdrop of anonymous plastic PCs, but how exclusive do they look in a sea of other Macs?
They'll no longer be the Herman Miller of computers, they'll be the Ikea -- mass produced stuff that looks exclusive, until you discover that all homes in the entire western world have the exact same furniture as yours. Ikea keeps this side effect at bay by offering many different models in many different colors and configurations, but Apple will be more like an Ikea with 3 different couch models only available in one color. Heck, even Ferrari has abandoned that concept.
So how do you expand the OS X territory without diluting the brand identity? That's right, you license OS X to Dell or HP and let them sell it to the plebs...!
... I really hate this message.
Because 90% of the time when I get it, it's after I force quit something that had been unresponsive for no apparent reason for a few minutes.
I don't recall older versions of Mac OS X giving an error message when you force quit something... they just did it (after you confirmed you wanted to anyways.) It seems like older versions only gave the error message when something had actually crashed and quit without me telling it to.
It's not necessarily for developers... more likely the webpage depicted is aimed at developers (it is the WWDC, after all), but the product itself (if it exists) is probably the Mac Mini successor and designed for, well, whoever wants it.
I doubt that this is an actual design at all (even if they used MacBook Air components they couldn't squeeze all that plus a DVD drive into that tiny enclosure), but if this machine actually exists it's an allround machine not made especially for developers.
Responses Re:#108
To Hayduke,
Apple sells hardware because Steve Jobs likes selling "cool" looking stuff.
And his company HAS produced some cool-looking stuff.
But that is not the most profitable business model.
Micro$oft figured this out decades ago.
Once you get your code written, tested, and released, it doesn't "break".
It doesn't change.
You crank each copy out like of cookie cutter.
Hardware is not that way.
Moving parts can break, suppliers can get "bad" parts from their suppliers, and assembler can have a bad day, one pin in a connector can fail to make contact with its mating contact, etc.
"Quality control" (an industrial fiction) cannot catch every problem.
There are costs associated with preventing or fixing all of these kinds of problems that you do not have to worry about with software.
...........................................
To macintosh tech,
I am an economist.
Take an Economics class yourself.
..........................................................
To bitWrangler,
Yes, testing, yes, development.
I left out some details for the sake of brevity.
The point was/is all of that activity is ongoing.
It is a relatively stable budget item.
(The same can be said for hardware but the difference is in the execution. Production of hardware is more involved and expensive [see above].)
Support costs will rise roughly with market-share.
But should actually rise more slowly, because not every PC installation will have a problem.
Yes, some support questions will be more complex and that will cause the 20/80 rule to kick in - 80% of your support cost will be devoted to fixing 20% of the problems.
The 12-18 month release cycle is what keeps the costs stable.
And they are not starting with a clean sheet of C++ for every cycle, so they are not rewriting the whole OS every year (like M$ has to do because their product is such a klooge.)
BTW, I think the main reason "Mac" has been dropped from the banners is because Apple is more than a "Macintosh" company, and Steve J & Co. what to keep the Apple brand more generic to allow them to introduce more varied products in the future.
To Hayduke,
Apple sells hardware because Steve Jobs likes selling "cool" looking stuff.
And his company HAS produced some cool-looking stuff.
But that is not the most profitable business model.
Micro$oft figured this out decades ago.
Once you get your code written, tested, and released, it doesn't "break".
It doesn't change.
You crank each copy out like of cookie cutter.
Hardware is not that way.
Moving parts can break, suppliers can get "bad" parts from their suppliers, and assembler can have a bad day, one pin in a connector can fail to make contact with its mating contact, etc.
"Quality control" (an industrial fiction) cannot catch every problem.
There are costs associated with preventing or fixing all of these kinds of problems that you do not have to worry about with software.
...........................................
To macintosh tech,
I am an economist.
Take an Economics class yourself.
..........................................................
To bitWrangler,
Yes, testing, yes, development.
I left out some details for the sake of brevity.
The point was/is all of that activity is ongoing.
It is a relatively stable budget item.
(The same can be said for hardware but the difference is in the execution. Production of hardware is more involved and expensive [see above].)
Support costs will rise roughly with market-share.
But should actually rise more slowly, because not every PC installation will have a problem.
Yes, some support questions will be more complex and that will cause the 20/80 rule to kick in - 80% of your support cost will be devoted to fixing 20% of the problems.
The 12-18 month release cycle is what keeps the costs stable.
And they are not starting with a clean sheet of C++ for every cycle, so they are not rewriting the whole OS every year (like M$ has to do because their product is such a klooge.)
BTW, I think the main reason "Mac" has been dropped from the banners is because Apple is more than a "Macintosh" company, and Steve J & Co. what to keep the Apple brand more generic to allow them to introduce more varied products in the future.
so..... what is it???? =)
theme about btidges.....? =)
Photoshop. To be that thin, it would have to be wider, like the base of a notebook.
It doesn't look that thin. In fact, it looks to be 2-2.3 times as thick as my MBP (when opened, that is. Without the screen).
Well, it could be using the MBA processor and mobo... but if this was to be a Mac Mini successor I don't see the flash drive thing happening unless they triple the price.
Well, they could use an ordinary drive, just like the MBP.
The thing is, when an MBP is open, it's rather thin. And this one doesn't have an integral screen, so that's a good comparison.
Another thing it doesn't have is speakers and, most importantly: A keyboard.
Now, after having removed the screen, the speakers, battery and keyboard, one could certainly cram the rest into 55 x 55 percent (of lengths) of the MBP - especially at double or a little more than double the height.
Shows over, everybody go home til September
Looks like the rumors of a new Mac Mini, Mac Tablet, Mac Touch and OS X for the PC have once again proven to be false.
Looks like the rumors of a new Mac Mini, Mac Tablet, Mac Touch and OS X for the PC have once again proven to be false.
not generic PC's but a shipping option?
I'm not so sure we'll ever see OS X available freely out in the wild for anyone with a PC to install and run like you would with windows, but what if it were developed as a shipping option on Dell or HP boxes as an alternative to Windows? Supported only on that specific box, to me that makes more sense.
I'm not so sure we'll ever see OS X available freely out in the wild for anyone with a PC to install and run like you would with windows, but what if it were developed as a shipping option on Dell or HP boxes as an alternative to Windows? Supported only on that specific box, to me that makes more sense.