Lack of 'Mac' Branding Raises Questions

[Columbo X]

Mac OS for generic PCs? I agree that this makes no sense - it seems to go against the Jobsian philosophy of providing the complete package: hardware + software. It also seems to contradict what the iPod halo effect and switcher campaigns are doing. If they provide OS X for the PC and do it well, what motivation would someone have to invest in mac hardware? And as others have pointed out, Apple make a great deal off their hardware.

Since Apple dropped "Computer" from their name to expand into other areas, they'll want to leverage their OS to support the new consumer devices they develop - so it makes sense to drop Mac from the title.

 

[Project]

Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU like Mac OS X; en) AppleWebKit/420.1 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/3.0 Mobile/4A102 Safari/419.3)



Actually, Apple is a SOFTWARE company. This has been stated repeatedly by Jobs. Hence "those who are are passionate about software make their own hardware," and not "those who are passionate about hardware make their own software."

Isn't it the same thing?


The whole widget approach is so fundamental to the way Apple do things that you can't really just call them a software or hardware company. It ignores too much of the other side of things

 

[themiracle]

Honestly... Mac hardware sales would PLUMIT. Apple would NEVER allow that to happen.

If I could run OSX on a $1200 17 inch Dell laptop as opposed to a $2500+ lap top…. I would in a SECOND. I am as big of an Apple fan boy as the next guy…. But $1300 is a lot of coinage.

This is all about Apple setting the stage for future Mobile platforms.....

I guess the idea is the actual performance and design. Yes, you can get a massively underpowered, clunky Dell for $1300 or a nice Macbook Pro for $2500 that has most of the power any pro would want. The $1300 advertised Dell is usually crap consumer candy that requires about $1200+ in upgrades to catch up to the Apple.

IF this does happen, I like the idea of them keeping it to the price range that they currently don't control. Yes, it is a great time to strike against a bloated and collapsing Windows, but measures need to be taken to avoid the problems they had when they licensed to generics in the mid 90s (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Macintosh_clone).

 

[G58]

Two phrases you used there contrive to destroy your own argument:

"... a long while back" and "... suddenly changed his mind"

Even if he'd said at MacExpo: "We have no plans to allow OS X to run on PCs" it would be naive to characterise an announcement in June as 'suddenly changing his mind'. He's a serious businessman and a marketing genius.

Remember, nine months before he returned to Apple in 1997, Jobs was talking about his future plans in a TV interview, he never mentioned it! But then he wouldn't would he?

No, Steve Jobs hasn't suddenly changed his mind. But he may have finally decided on the tool to kill M$.

I'm going to have to call BS on this one. Jobs killed the idea of clones a long while back and I doubt that he has suddenly changed his mind. The fact is, Apple is not going to open the Pandora's box of generic x86 platform support. Having to support all of the billions of possible PC hardware configurations would be a tech support nightmare.

Man, the wild speculation is really flying for this WWDC. Some of these rumours are worthy of Weekly World News, right along side batboy, bigfoot and alien anal-probing rayguns [cue creepy X-files music]. Mulder and Scully would be proud.

 

[Anuba]

I've been saying this since the Intel switch.

My guess..... No.

A big reason why Windows has so many perceived problems, IMHO, is that their OS has to work on so many different hardware combinations. OS X doesn't. MS has to spend a lot of money troubleshooting weird hardware combinations. Apple doesn't. And I don't think that the PC makers would be able to keep this kind of secret if Apple had sub-contracted support to the hardware makers.

PC hardware combinations aren't that weird anymore. Especially when it comes to notebooks, and notebooks are the norm these days. Ever since Intel introduced the Centrino platform a few years ago, pretty much all PC notebooks have similar innards. Given the nature of notebooks, the weird combinations tend to be mostly about external peripherals (printers, keyboards, mice etc) and there are already OSX drivers for many such devices. They may also restrict it to a few select hardware manufacturers and require them to A) pay a royalty on each machine sold, and B) stick to certain hardware combinations and refrain from putting in any funky stuff of their own choosing.

Honestly... Mac hardware sales would PLUMIT.

People keep saying that but I don't think it's the case. In fact I think it may boost Apple hardware sales. Apple will still have the upper hand because many people will want the real deal. Apple still have the sweetest industrial design, they have a strong brand associated with status, they'll always be the Audi of OS X compliant computers. Audi doesn't worry about Volkswagen, Skoda, Seat or any of the brands in the same group because Audi will always be Audi and they know that the owners of those cars will always wish they had an Audi. And when you run OS X on an Apple machine you can feel confident that it will run flawlessly on that machine, because Apple hand picked the hardware combo. Imagine if there were Made by Microsoft PCs, or at least a kind of Microsoft seal of approval. Machines with hardware combinations that Microsoft vouches for. Machines that will always work with any new Windows version right from the start, while the rest of the world will be stuck in limbo for months waiting for various hardware manufacturers to sort out driver issues. Those machines would be so much more attractive, especially for volume customers, than any generic crap.

"Mac sales will plummit!!" is kind of like the Y2K scare. People stockpiled food, climbed underground and braced themselves for pandemonium, only to discover that absolutely nothing broke down, nothing exploded, no Russian missiles went off... nothing.

 

[chicagdan]

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.

You guys mock Arn's instincts at your own peril. I've had an increasing feeling over the last several Jobs' keynotes that Apple is going to slowly move away from what we've traditionally thought of as the computer (Apple Inc., not Apple Computer ... hint hint) and become more of a mobile device company. This could be a strategically brilliant move on Apple's part -- focus on unique devices, not boxes anyone can make. Over the long run, it might be the only way for Apple to protect its massive margins while building market share.

 

[Ubuntu]

i really hope this doesn't happen. we already have 1 microsoft, we don't need another

This made me giggle.

 

[G58]

See, it works



You're right by the way. And I don't mean that in any simplistic, 'great! he thinks like me' kind of way. There's more to this whole thing than some of the entry-level responses here would suggest.

OS X is a very strong product and an equally strong brand. Dropping the Mac bit is pure common sense. Going cross platform is pure genius.

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.

 

[iSee]

Is Apple planning on distributing OS X to computers other than Macs?

No need to speculate. OS X is already being distributed on computers other than Macs: iPhones and iPods. No doubt there will be other non-"Mac" brands of products inporporating OS X in the future as well.

I doubt there will be non-Apple products using OS X, though.

 

[Telp]

My guess is they dropped the Mac to make the point that it's not just on Macs anymore - it's on the iPhone as well, and, dare I say, a new mystery tablet.

This makes the most sense. Just like how they removed the computer from Apple Computer Inc. They didn't stop making computers, they just wanted to make sure that the focus wasn't directly on that.

 

[javierbds]

What about a version of OS X that can run virtualized on other OSs?

Apple is producing more sw that runs on windows.
Apple is producing more device types (except the type that sells most: common desktop). Apple may create a certification program for that type of machine and open it to third parties (I do not think current psystar is good enough). Apple would not enter that segment themselves. But could release a specific version of OS X suited for that market alone. Those desktops anyway, would never be as cheap as those running the crappy flavors of Vista. The only thing not clear is what kind of sw support would this type of 'licensed for Basic OS X' get ... If it is the kind of 'support' MS has given to users then it would indeed be 'Basic OS X' ... Apple has consistently proved that sw-wise it runs loops around the whole industry. Hardware-wise it creates good machines but cannot produce a world-wide mass-market machine. But I think Apple will not want all the fuss of that model ...

For me, the reasonable approach would be to make a version of Basic OS X to run virtualized over others OSs (or some type of OS container). This would not be as good/fast/capable as 'True' OS X on Apple's hw and would let Apple free on how to evolve its own platforms.
This would have many advantages ...
I do not know if Apple allows yet to run OS X virtualized on OS X ...

 

[RoDe]

This is not gonna happen and we all know it. Apple has always been very proud about the fact that they make everything themselves. They have always been very open about the fact that they think it is better to make both the hardware and the software as to get the optimum out of each other.

 

[Anuba]

Mac OS for generic PCs? I agree that this makes no sense - it seems to go against the Jobsian philosophy of providing the complete package: hardware + software. It also seems to contradict what the iPod halo effect and switcher campaigns are doing. If they provide OS X for the PC and do it well, what motivation would someone have to invest in mac hardware? And as others have pointed out, Apple make a great deal off their hardware.

Since Apple dropped "Computer" from their name to expand into other areas, they'll want to leverage their OS to support the new consumer devices they develop - so it makes sense to drop Mac from the title.

Buyers aren't the only ones who need motivation. For the good of the platform you also want all the software and hardware manufacturers out there to support it. A cross-platform OS X would be the incentive for a lot of companies to get their thumbs out of their butts. Yes you can get Office and Photoshop, but there are so many thousands of other things you get cut off from in OS X. Countless PC-only peripherals, games and other pieces of software... even websites that only work with IE or Firefox because they can't be arsed to support Safari. I'm kind of a Logitech fan and I have dozens of their gadgets around the house, but only half of them have OS X drivers.

If OS X suddenly doubles or triples its market share, all these manufacturers will be doing a lot of rethinking... this will help make OS X a more realistic and viable alternative for many switchers who are on the fence, and they'll be looking at Apple hardware first before they consider anything else. If they go for a non-Apple alternative in the end, at least Apple will get a few bucks for the OS and possibly stuff like iWork down the line. That's a lot better than selling them nothing at all.

Apple has always been very proud about the fact that they make everything them selves. They have always been very open about the fact that they think it is better to make both the hardware and the software.

Meh... They make software and enclosures. The innards are generic PC components (Intel CPU, ATI/NVidia card, third party storage etc). And considering the fact that they have the benefit of hand picking the hardware themselves, they don't have all that much to be proud of because they should be able to keep the OS and software problems very near zero. And as we all know they've screwed up repeatedly with Leopard -- new issues keep cropping up for every 10.5.X update. Windows has to put up with billions of hardware combinations and it would be a miracle if it worked with all of them all the time. Apple have no such excuses and it's pathetic that they can't handle a few dozen hardware combos without stumbling.

 

[jim8151]

Exactly the type of bold move that would surprise (and delight)

It occurred to me a few days ago that Apple might be considering releasing OS X for generic Intel-based PCs. This would be a bold and surprising move at this stage, but let's face it: Microsoft is vulnerable right now with Vista as their operating system, and more and more people are choosing to stay on XP. If changing OS'es is inevitable, might not a lot more people consider moving to OS X now?

 

[MacbookVette]

Not sure, but I do remember at one keynote (either Macworld or WWDC) that Jobs quoted a journalist stating...

"Those that are serious about their software should make their own hardware"

I would love to be able to load OS X on my Thinkpad, but seems that based on that comment that Apple will continue to keep OS X on Macs

 

[Anuba]

It occurred to me a few days ago that Apple might be considering releasing OS X for generic Intel-based PCs. This would be a bold and surprising move at this stage, but let's face it: Microsoft is vulnerable right now with Vista as their operating system, and more and more people are choosing to stay on XP. If changing OS'es is inevitable, might not a lot more people consider moving to OS X now?

Exactly. If they're going in for the kill, now is the time to do it since it'll take forever for M$ to get the next version out, as usual. And that next version is bound to address a lot of the issues people are having with Vista, M$ has never taken so much criticism for any Windows version before (except WinME, but it was a small side track, Vista is their main road).

A move like this would certainly shed some new light on the agenda behind the relentless Vista slander in the "PC guy" commercials... and the script for the "PC guy gets OS X upgrade" spot practically writes itself.

 

[autrefois]

virtualization/Boot camp?

The first thing I thought when reading the OP was that Apple may be trying to start virtualization on PCs. I see at least two other people agree with this.

If OS X is ever going to go onto generic PCs in whatever shape and form, now is the time. The whole Vista and XP debacle has created a desperate situation for PC users, and if Apple can package OS X correctly - say install it in a boot camp or virtualization kind of way where users feel they are taking the smallest possible risk - then perhaps the time is right.

Apple is producing more sw that runs on windows. [...] the reasonable approach would be to make a version of Basic OS X to run virtualized over others OSs (or some type of OS container). This would not be as good/fast/capable as 'True' OS X on Apple's hw and would let Apple free on how to evolve its own platforms.

I'm not saying Apple will do this, but it's a possibility. I also thought this point was important:

Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU like Mac OS X; en) AppleWebKit/420.1 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/3.0 Mobile/4A102 Safari/419.3)

Actually, Apple is a SOFTWARE company. This has been stated repeatedly by Jobs. Hence "those who are are passionate about software make their own hardware," and not "those who are passionate about hardware make their own software."

I never thought of it that way, but you're right: this may be a glimpse into Jobs' thinking that I haven't seen presented before. Apple make the most money on their hardware, but does that mean that Jobs considers hardware the heart of Apple? The quote does appear to put the emphasis on the software and not the hardware. If Apple has the technology now (through development and a sort of "beta-testing" of key OS X apps on Windows such as iTunes, Quicktime, Safari, etc.) to get past the hurdle of the incompatibilities associated with the wide array of PC configurations, then Jobs may think it's ready to take on Windows on their own turf through a virtualization/boot camp solution.

If Apple can claim that they can support all (or nearly all) peripherals by working through Windows, or possibly even ones that Vista does not yet support (less likely), then people who feel cheated by Vista might be tempted to plunk down $130 (or whatever Apple would charge for the alleged Snow Leopard) to get a taste of what Macs are like before making the hardware switch.

It's true that statements by Jobs et al. and marketing on their website does seem to go against this move. But, then again,

Back in the day when the G3/G4/G5 were released, Apple crapped all over Intel and Intel Processors. How much faster the G* were and antiquated the Intel processors were.

Funny how tunes change when the winds of business drive a ship to new shores.

Apple has made such about-faces on several occasions. The 1984 commercial was against IBM, then Apple partnered with them to develop the G* line. Apple did a huge, years-long campaign against Intel, which they even referenced at the announcement of the switch-over to Intel. I think it's much less of a change in direction to move OS X to PCs: they wouldn't be abandoning making their own computers (presumably), just expanding the OS to the PC/Windows world to give people a taste of what it's like to own a Mac. The sell might go something like this:

"You know iTunes, the iPod, the iPhone, Safari, the most amazing(/faster/easiest to use/etc.) products in their categories? Well now, you will get to try out the OS behind these products on your very own PC. Through virtualization, you can run OS X inside Vista. Through virtualization, we support the same peripherals as Vista does. You get to run iLife, the best creative suite out there, from within Vista, plus thousands of other Mac-only software by Apple and some of the best third-party developers out there. It's not as good as having OS X on a Mac, but you'll see even as an emulated OS, it's a lot better than having Vista."

This is clearly speculation and hypothesizing, but I don't think it can be shot down as easily as some say it can.

 

[g8bo]

bye bye windoof! ("doof" is the german word für stupid... )

 

[sevenone]

It could happen and be successful. To all that say they would suffer the same problems as the past mac clones, one word....touch. They could bring to market a PC OSX that would run on generic machines, keep the high end mac pros and iMac (because they both are great machines, iMac especially has no equal in the market), and introduce a line of Mac Touch machines that they don't license to anybody.

Not the touch pads, but full touch integrated laptops and imac style machines. Imagine an iMac that can perform exactly the way they do now, but you could lift it off of the stand, lay it flat or on your lap, and work with it with your hands and with a wacom style pen maybe (throwing images, working like on paper). When your done, place it back on the stand (which also double as a charge station/hub). Even incorporate that tablet side port that was rumored. As a designer this would be amazing. The only way to have the new generation touch machine is through Apple.

This way they increase mac sales and apple marketshare. Microsoft couldn't touch them. PC people can run OSX, the way it works now. AND macs run new technology touch interfaces. BRILLIANT!

 

[BrotherCrack]

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.

Well honestly your point is very valid, but you're forgetting one thing, I was specifically mentioning for end users. I will bet anything that you are are not end users, you and 90% of mac users I know are what we call over here "power users" or creative pro's. You know how to take care of your mac and have become knowledgeable with your system. Now forgive me if I didn't specify that when I meant end users, I meant regular users, like on the brink of being retarded when it comes to computer. Which is most computer users by the way. The same people that when they buy their mac for the first time and decide to install boot camp they don't install an anti-virus because "it's a mac" and it magically creates a barrier that renders windows immune from viruses. The same users that if given 15 minutes with a Best Buy salesman would be convinced that they needed a Mac Pro. The ultimate workstation customized in the store with 2 TB Hard Drives and 8 gigs of ram. The ultimate workstation. . . For Word. . . and it's that same type of user that will not know jack about his/her machine and will use it for browsing, e-mail and office apps. The ones that won't hesitate to open an e-mail of Free Lifetime supply of Cialis to get you harder than chinese algebra. When you absolutely positively need to mess up every freaking computer in the room you call on the end user to get the job done. Now if apple ever gains a larger install base like that of windows they will also assimilate the end user in a higher degree. My friend if you don't believe an end user can mess up a mac if you give them time, then you have lost your faith in humanity. Give me a man with infinite stupidity and I will give you a man that thinks that his slot loading superdrive is a slot loading waffle iron. So you might think it's BS but I can imagine a day when an end user will call tech support because they have been infected with a virus and see a bunch of squiggly lines and their system hangs, but will fail to see those squiggly lines are actually japanese and will also fail to see the machines also tried to tell them the problem in English, French, and German. I can also see Malware pogrammers making a a virus or something that changes the languange to german and instead of the marble of doom you get a full blown spinning swastika for the hell of it, just because they can. I hope it never happens too, cause I am living the dream, I own a mac. Ahh hell you know what Im not too keen on my opinion to keep defending since this is a far fetched topic anyway, and it doesn't have a hobo's chance in hell of happening anyway. Let's just call this the 2012 Mayan prophecy and call it even ok? I know there was a snowball in there somewhere but it got lost in translation

 

[Peace]

I don't see where folks are getting something out of nothing in these banners. Apple has no need to put "Mac OSX Leopard" on it. Everybody knows what OSX Leopard is on.

 

[El Carbonite]

I don't see where folks are getting something out of nothing in these banners. Apple has no need to put "Mac OSX Leopard" on it. Everybody knows what OSX Leopard is on.

My point exactly.

 

[D4F]

Well that certainly would be a nice attempt to beat the crap out of MS at a larger scale...

 

[EagerDragon]

+ the fact that Apple hasn't made a move on destroying Psystar.

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.

If Apple were to sell OSX to PC makers, it would destroy the Windows foothold ................ However It would kill the Mac and raise support cost thru the roof. In that case Apple would look and behave a lot like M$.

 

[e.magnusson]

Could this be an incredibly evil plot by Apple to get ride of Microsoft?
Think about it, if they do release OS X for other companies like Dell, then people may start buying those Dell laptops with OS X on them instead of the Windows one. And by hyping of OS X even more Apple could convince most people to get OS X versions of computers instead of the Windows ones, thus Microsoft looses money, eventually goes bankrupt and dies, then Apple decides to drop support for all those other companies and allows OS X to only be available on the Mac and killing all other competition leaving Apple the only successful computer company.

Clever, huh?