Sidebar Sidebar
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

Not happening - Apple makes all it's money from hardware sales.

What would they rather sell, a £700 MacBook with OS X on it, or a £90 DVD with OS X on it.

And the sales aren't gonna suddenly jump up that much. Bear in mind Apple's hardware sells because of the software that's on it.
 
The most logical and simple explanation for "OS X Leopard" is that "Mac OS X iPhone" on the next banner would sound pretty retarded. "OS X Leopard" and "OS X iPhone" together sound matching and make a clear marketing point.

I posted here yesterday before we saw the banners that the "OS X iPhone" is the Snow Leopard we've been hearing about. I still stand this is the most logical and simple answer.
 
Holy crap, my post got onto MacRumors! :eek:

*dies*

To clarify, I don't think we'll see this happen, but we never know with Jobs. Either way, speculation is always fun. ;)
 
"Its the OS, Stupid"

iphone-market-share.jpg


Apple is going after RIM/Blackberry. To do this, they need to position the iPhone OS as a serious mobile communications platform in the market and not just a pretty face inside the iPhone shell. I feel the WWDC banners reflect that agenda.
 
wicktron said:
Also regarding hardware configurations causing perceivable problems... I don't see Linux having much trouble on various x86 configurations. Why would OSX have problems? An OS is as good as it's foundation and it's core, and OSX has as good, if not better foundation in its BSD/Unix roots.

Although I think OSX would do just fine in a PC atmosphere, I think it will decrease Apple's core brand of exclusitivity and completely cannibalize the sales of their hardware. The Apple as we know it would cease to exist, and the symphonic harmony of the beautifully orchestrated hardware-software existence of Apple would be no more... Say hello to the era of windowed, CCFL, high dBA fanned OSX computers *cowers in fear*
Click to expand...

I'm not saying you're wrong but in my opinion OSX or any Linux/Unix OS has not trodden the path that windows has in terms of number of users and install base. OSX may or may not be unstable if it ever reaches the same amount of users running it as windows. But you have to admit niether OSX nor Linux have had to handle these types of numbers. With the increase in popularity so does the increase of people programming malware/viruses for that platform hence harder to keep up. This is only going to be proven once we cross that bridge unfortunately. Also have you ever seen an end user install Linux? Many end users can barely go through a Windows installation without going Berserk or like a puppy tilting it's head sideways, much less Linux. Even though apple is WAY easier to install, I can't imagine apple including delegating support to other companies nor being able to handle any quality control issues or crappy software a third party company would like to add. Apple excels at bringing the best end user experience for someone who knows nothing of computers and wants just get things done. In my opinion that's "stability" more than anything else here and that "stability" is what apple has to lose in terms of less integrated hardware with software by licensing OSX to other vendors. I'm not even gonna go into the obvious cannibalization that many others have mentioned.
 
They they ever want to be taken seriously again in the computing world, they will never get a better chance. They're hotter than they've EVER been, MS is lamer than it ever was with **** competitor like Vista, Zune, Windows Movie Maker, either you do it now before MS release Win7 (which COULD be good enough to stop the current switching hemorrhage) or you forget about it. It's always been a risk, Apple makes money on Hardware, but they're computers are so hot since they switched to Intel that they just make this switch without losing hardware sales, maybe even gain a lot more if the OS X market becomes more attractive.

But OS X 10.6 will have to be SECURE, none if that Safari 3.0 or OS X 10.5.0 ********. Apple haters will be watching and it won't take a lot for a powerful backlash against OS X 10.6 on PC if it gets attacked by viruses or hack attacks.
 
Won't happen

Reasons why it won't happen.

1. Apple is all about the user experience. If they opened it up to clones, Apple would have a Windows user experience nightmare on their hands.

2. Lost value. Look at the clone fiasco of the 90s. Allowing 3rd parties to create clones would result in OS X losing its value. To recapture that value, Apple would have to jack up the price in order to recapture the lost value.

3. Cannibalize hardware sales. Just like the 90s, Apple would lose profits.

4. Apple is unifying its marketing strategy around OS X. OS X for the desktop/laptop, OS X for the cell phone, OS X for its future products - tablet, MID, game console?

:apple: :apple: :apple: :apple: :apple:
 
BrotherCrack said:
I'm not saying you're wrong but in my opinion OSX or any Linux/Unix OS has not trodden the path that windows has in terms of number of users and install base. OSX may or may not be unstable if it ever reaches the same amount of users running it as windows. But you have to admit niether OSX nor Linux have had to handle these types of numbers. With the increase in popularity so does the increase of people programming malware/viruses for that platform hence harder to keep up. This is only going to be proven once we cross that bridge unfortunately. A
Click to expand...

BTW this is a ******** argument. OS 9 had nowhere near the number of users as OS X, yet there were 12 known viruses floating on the net for it (and I even got infected twice by one of them). In 8 years of Mac OS X there has never been a single real virus. All the retarded "concept" "virus" done by anti virus companies could never successful attack a foreign Mac in the wild.
Windows was built around Internet Explorer. OS X is built in independent layers. Windows is basically a dollar store grade operating system that met a huge success because 1- It had no competition at the time and 2-Back then people were ignorant and just bought whatever the salesman at radio shack or whatever told them to buy.
 
SirOmega said:
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.
Click to expand...

Agreed. This is insanity. There is no ***** way in hell. And where would all the drivers suddenly come from for the billions of PC components and accessories? You guys think Windows 98/Vista drivers were a mess, just imagine starting from scratch instead of the years of headache Microsoft has had to at least attempt to make it work.

And just imagine the economics issues. Apple making $50 an OEM copy and have 75% of their potential customers buying cheaper PC hardware which they don't make dime off of! If I were an investor, I would scream! It would really be a great way to lose a ton of money. Currently, people are just starting to understand that they should spend more on computers and receive a better product (Mac) that will last them longer and be much more productive than the disaster of running Windows XP daily.
 
Turning the range to the Pro, Book, Book Air, Book Pro? It is a redundant word - as all Macs are from Apple currently. Lot of history though. The OS is from Apple though - the iPHone isn't a Mac - can see why to drop there.
 
SirOmega said:
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.
Click to expand...

What would a Snow Leopard's chance be?

cwc123188 said:
+ the fact that Apple hasn't made a move on destroying Psystar.:cool:

I think the move to sell OS X to other PC makers could potentially bring down Windows but- it would one day make OS X as bad as Windows IMO.:(
Click to expand...

Quoted for truth.
 
it is possible. by allowing anyone to install OS X then even people without Macs could create iPhone software. I hope not though.

It may just be that they are emphasizing to developers that everything is on OS X hence the fact a banner said 'OS X iPhone'

Plus apple makes most of its money on HARDWARE. if they release OS X to other platforms who is going to buy a mac when they can get a similar spec PC with OS X for £200 less.
 
I highly doubt it.
Read the FAQ on the Apple website, under "Is mac reliable?" it states:
When you buy a PC, you’re buying hardware from one company and an operating system and software from other companies. Not so with a Mac. Because Apple builds both the computer and the software that comes with it, they’re literally made for each other. This means that a Mac rarely freezes or crashes. Occasionally an application might quit, but it won’t affect the rest of your system. And Mac OS X resists most viruses, so you can do anything — without worrying about losing everything.
Click to expand...
 
bitWrangler said:
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.
Click to expand...

By that logic, before the iPhone-announcement we could have said: "there will be no iPhone. Just take a look at their financial: Apple makes money on computers and iPods, not phones". Same thing for iPod before it was announced. "Apple is a computer-manufacturer, they don't make gadgets!".

Apple is not making much money on sales of OS X because they are not selling that many of them. If they sold to generic PC:s, they could sell OS X to about 400 million machines, as opposed to selling it to just 10 million machines or so. And if they did do it, I could see them charging for more money for the PC-version. Mac-users could get OS X for $129, while PC-users would have to pay $199 or $249. Apple would make HUGE amounts of money.

It's hardware, they use their software to pump a lot of high margin hardware.
Click to expand...

Software can have insane margins. There are no tangible hardware to manufacture, transport and sell. It's all just a bunch of bits.

Would I want Apple to sell OS X to generic PC's? Maybe, maybe not. It would REALLY hurt Microsoft, and everything that hurts Microsoft, is a good thing on some level. While Macs could reach market-share of 20% in 15 years or so, I could see OS X getting 20% market-share in just few years if it was available to generic PC's.
 
One more thing to add to the speculation...they did change their name last year from Apple Computer to just plain Apple. That said, not a chance of this happening. I will eat my iPhone. This goes against every argument they've ever made for OS X over Windows. I agree with the whole iPhone separation idea.
 
All I can say is I hope not. It would open the door for a lot of the problems inherit in PC's with the multitude of drivers needed for all the hardware configurations, all the cheap / no name parts etc.

Personally I don't mind paying more for a Mac as I know it won't (generally) give me any surprises, and if I really want to install it on a normal PC I could always hack it ;)
 
syklee26 said:
if Apple doesn't sell full blown OSX and just some stripped down version of OSX to PCs, I think it makes good sense to do that in order to promote the superiority of OSX and the ability to easily integrate Apple goods into full OSX equipped systems.
Click to expand...

I thought this as well. Snow Leopard might be Apple's answer to XP and Linux. Since they won't build a truly budget PC, let budget PC makers have a simple version of the OS that isn't so intensive to maintain - one that will run on PCs too low powered to run professional video and editing software and that will mainly be used for accessing emails and surfing the Internet. If MS can restrict XP to Budget PCs, Apple can do the same with OS X. They might even give the software away to make it as attractive as Linux.
 
Or maybe...

Or maybe, Apple is planning on licensing OS X to other phones!

Honestly, they struggle to make sure that OS X works fine with macs as it is, adding a whole world of other manufacturers might completely collapse it (unless they have a skunkworks style alternative OS X going). However, phones are already rather closed devices, with great integration between hardware and software, so they could partner with folks like Palm, to introduce OS X in all mobile devices.

I think they might be looking at history here. Not licensing the Mac OS nearly destroyed them a decade ago. Maybe they dont want to make that mistake a second time. Already many suspect that Android might be to the iphone what MS Dos was to the mac...
 
All in the name

I think I agree with the consensus about making.. (or rather losing) the distinction between an OS on the Mac and an OS on the iPhone. Dropping the name Mac from the OS simply strengthens the fact that it IS all about the OS. What software does your Mac run ? OS X. What OS does your phone run ? OS X.
 
No.

Last time Apple started the clones it drove them to bankruptcy because no one was buying their hardware.

Its obvious that OS X runs on iPhones, iPods, ATV's, hence why its not Mac OS X, hence why Apple dropped computer from their name.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back