Lack of 'Mac' Branding Raises Questions

[FoxyKaye]

I completely agree and/or disagree with everything that has been speculated up to this point on this thread. Yeah - it could be all that, or it could just be that some PR Flack decided that Apple is now "mainstream" and therefore needs "new improved and consistent branding" to "broadly entrench its image" and "enhance it in key market segments."

 

[Sky Blue]

I've been reading macrumors since.... 2003, i think. This is the most ridiculous theory I've read here (including user submitted posts).

 

[kingtj]

re: mixed feelings

I've thought about this one a few times before, too. It's a risky move for Apple, without a doubt -- but as they say, "with great risk comes great reward".

I'm not so sure the hardware compatibility will be much of an issue, because people do get the idea that if they buy a different OS made by a different manufacturer, they need to make sure they also buy compatible printers, scanners, etc. etc.

People got mad about hardware incompatibility when Microsoft changed OS's and things quit working - but that's to be expected. They considered their new OS an "upgrade" since it came from the same source, and to most average users, "Windows is Windows". (If my printer says it's made for Windows, it better WORK when I buy the newest version of Windows.)

The only area I could see problems is with video cards. Apple has traditionally stuck to supporting only a very few video chipsets at a time with OS X. In order to release an OS X for generic PCs, they'll have to do something very different with their video support first. That has potential to be a "problem area". (EG. How well will Apple's OpenGL really be supported with some of the video boards out there that have been focused only on Direct-X/Direct 3D support for all this time?)

I think that by releasing an OS X for regular PCs, Apple is also setting themselves up for a big decline in hardware sales. As much as I like their hardware, the fact you *need* it to legally run OS X is a huge part of why people purchase it instead of other brands.

Mixed feelings if Apple decides to sell to generic PCs....
Initial thoughts: It's the tight integration between software and hardware that makes a OS X so great.
Bringing OS X to the wild west that is the PC hardware world I think would devalue OS X to alot of people.
I dunno, I'll ponder about this

 

[Anuba]

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.

People were bound to look for hidden clues, given that the banners read "There's something in the air" the last time around, using a thinner font than normal. Some argued that people were reading way too much into things, but as it turned out, the product was indeed called "Air" and it was indeed very thin.

I'd totally buy the "everybody knows, so no need to put it in" explanation if it weren't for the fact that a company like Apple has an entire manual for things like these, and half a dozen lawyers upholding the law of the manual... Volumes III, IV and V go on about how the space between "OS" and "X" must be no smaller and no larger than XX.XX units (except under circumstances Y and Z, see appendix #489.6).

 

[jmorrison0722]

I hope so, I really do.

 

[50548]

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.

The moment Apple licenses OS X is the moment when Macs are DEAD as a hardware platform. So NO, this is NOT gonna happen.

Besides, Apple already hasn't used "Mac OS X" in advertising on many occasions, I think...and the WWDC invitation said it ALL: IT'S ALL ABOUT TWO BRIDGES LEADING TO IPHONE AND MAC DEVELOPMENTS. Nothing else.

 

[joeyjojo]

Cocoa a successor to Vanilla Kernel?

oops

 

[beez1717]

my anaysis

Does anyone remember the WWDC banner with two bridges either converging or splitting? This makes me wonder if they are going to upgrade mac os to 10.6, and split it into two editions, one for the apple computers, and one for the PC computers. What this would allow them to do is still make the mac edition the bigger and better version while giving the PC users a better OS then what most PC users already have. And apple could have found a way to make it so that ALL PC programs will run on that version of OS X. This would then make many more people move to that operating system. Now mind you, Apple would still not allow people to have the OS come pre installed on a computer besides their own. This would have the effect of protecting their sales of computers.

 

[EagerDragon]

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?

No, Apple makes the majority of their money from the hardware sales. Apple would go belly up before they can sell enough OSX to make the difference in income. Apple would die before M$ does.


Why not Mac OS X, probably becuase it does not need to say that, after all all the participants are Mac or iPhone developers!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! I think they have a clue as to what system runs OS X.

But lets follow on with the idea that it maybe something else (just for entretainment value):
******* It maybe possible that Apple is planning on selling computers that run OSX but are not "Mac's". Some new line of Apple specific computers, maybe those based on Multi-touch technology or gesturing without actually needing to touch the "surface" (PUN intended). New line of non-Mac computers from Apple.

 

[Sky Blue]

Does anyone remember the WWDC banner with two bridges either converging or splitting? This makes me wonder if they are going to upgrade mac os to 10.6, and split it into two editions, one for the apple computers, and one for the PC computers. What this would allow them to do is still make the mac edition the bigger and better version while giving the PC users a better OS then what most PC users already have. And apple could have found a way to make it so that ALL PC programs will run on that version of OS X. This would then make many more people move to that operating system. Now mind you, Apple would still not allow people to have the OS come pre installed on a computer besides their own. This would have the effect of protecting their sales of computers.

TWO BRIDGES, TWO PLATFORMS

OS X IPHONE
OS X LEOPARD

ARLGRJKNGG,.NGRGR.J,.,,.a,.dm,.ds

 

[Anuba]

I've been reading macrumors since.... 2003, i think. This is the most ridiculous theory I've read here (including user submitted posts).

In 2003, some people were trumpeting the possibility that Apple might be switching to Intel. Many people thought it was a ludicrous idea and the phrase "snowball's chance in hell" was tossed around a lot. Many felt filthy, even violated just considering the notion that "Wintel crap" might one day contaminate their precious Macs...

Here's an example of what naysayers sounded like back in those days.

 

[bretm]

+ 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.

Exactly. As a stockholder I'm like "sell to everybody!" but as a Mac User, I enjoy being a niche where everything works.

 

[Anuba]

Exactly. As a stockholder I'm like "sell to everybody!" but as a Mac User, I enjoy being a niche where everything works.

I don't think you need worry about viruses (thanks to Unix), but Apple will certainly have to beef up other security aspects. The merry days of waiting 3 years to plug an identified security hole will be over for sure.

 

[bretm]

No, Apple makes the majority of their money from the hardware sales. Apple would go belly up before they can sell enough OSX to make the difference in income. Apple would die before M$ does.

You're thinking is narrow in focus. For example, on hardware sales. They probably are making $500 or less on a computer. Steve quoted that in $98 and I think margins are a lot tighter. Prices were higher back then across the board on the machines.

But now Apple is a great software manufacturer. iLife is $80 of pure profit to every PC user they could sell it to. Final Cut Studio is $1200 of found money to every PC user they could sell it to. Same with iWork. I'm guessing that many Apple users would switch to PC platform to save cash just like we did when clones were out. And that's the rub. I think Apple would eventually have to be a software manufacturer. They could also sell high end computers but not for as much as they do now. But I think they are ripening themselves to fall back as a software and gadget company.

But their potential market for software instantly grows to 100% instead of 7%. What share of those folks would buy OSX and not iWork or iLife? I'm guessing so many might dabble into FCS that it comes close to making up the hardware losses.

But MS will be fine. They're not just an OS company, they too are a sofware company. They'll be happy to sell a brand new $400 copy of office to every PC user that switches to Mac.

And don't worry

 

[bretm]

I don't think you need worry about viruses (thanks to Unix), but Apple will certainly have to beef up other security aspects. The merry days of waiting 3 years to plug an identified security hole will be over for sure.

I wasn't referring to viruses, but to the fact that HP and Dell would be making the hardware, and Apple would be faced with the same issues that MS is. They can't make their OS work as well because of all the different hardware. It's practically out of their control.

 

[Anuba]

I wasn't referring to viruses, but to the fact that HP and Dell would be making the hardware, and Apple would be faced with the same issues that MS is. They can't make their OS work as well because of all the different hardware. It's practically out of their control.

Just because they would be releasing it to Dell or HP doesn't mean that it has to be on the usual terms á la Microsoft, who couldn't care less if you sold toasters with OEM copies of Vista included.

Just look at the requirements for iPhone carriers. Apple would require HP and/or Dell to comply with a set of rules. It would be Apple approved configurations only. Of course this wouldn't stop anyone with a home built PC from trying to run a pirate copy of OS X but that's his problem.

 

[jeremyrader]

I don't think it will happen, but here's something to ponder:

When Honda started Acura way back when, a lot of people said it wouldn't last. How many people are going to pay extra for a dolled up Civic? 20 years later, the answer is, "plenty". Nissan and Toyota got the hint as well...

Not everyone can afford an Acura though, so they buy a Honda now because of its perceived reliability, love it, and make the switch to the "luxury" version when their income justifies it. Could something similar work in the computer world?

If Apple were to license their "engine" to non-Apple manufacturers, how many people would buy into it? Even if the hardware options were limited to a very, very short list and Apple got a percentage of every one sold in addition to the cost of the OS, PC manufacturers aren't going to complain knowing how fast OS X is growing in popularity (not to mention other Apple branded hardware and software); they'll still have good profit margins and the revenue potential is huge. Even if we're talking a couple hundred bucks difference, the market is there. And DIYers would definitely see the savings potential.

Would it be as pretty as a Mac? Probably not. Would it be as good as a Mac? If Apple holds onto a few key luxury technologies, such as Touch, it will be close, but not quite. Would people who want Apple but can't afford a MBP while going to college look forward to the day they are making more money and would thus willingly pay more for the prestige computer? More than most people would think, I'll bet.

Has everyone forgot about the lack of updates to the perpetually doomed Mini - the "low-priced" BYOKM computer that was supposed to hook Windows users? How long have people been waiting for a mid-tower? Alleged lack of updates to the Mac Pro aside, is it the hardware or the software that makes it such a desirable product for professionals?

Steve Jobs has not been shy about predicting where computing is heading (with Apple leading, of course) - mobility. Desktops and servers are not dead or dying, but laptop sales will overtake desktop sales very, very soon. And the forefront of technology is the ultra-mobile concept; the iPhone and iPod Touch are just the beginning of where Apple is likely to go.

Remember the uproars when Apple dropped "essential" items from their lineups? How can we live without a floppy drive? But I love my s-video out! Apple could one day drop all desktops to a jaw-dropped audience, and all Jobs would have to say is, "who really needs them?" and 90% would wake up and say, "good point". The other 10% still have OS X equipped options.

 

[rpaloalto]

Thats just plain retarded.

That would never happen. For all those who even remotely fathom, this idea a possibility. Shame on you.


Now when the day comes, that Steve Jobs steps down or is replaced. I my self might even give this rumor, a second thought.

 

[mojoxp]

Snow Leopard = Leopard Running on a White Box?

It actually makes sense from a fiscal perspective it makes sense too: sell OSX OEM only and only let it run on Apple certified hardware (ie: select Intel platforms). A Dell with a clean install of XP/Vista on pure Intel platforms with the proper drivers is just as stable as OSX.

Apple already leads the top end ($1000+) computing market, because they make vastly better hardware. It looks stylish, its well designed, and is generally pretty study (out side of the MacBook). Putting OSX on a Dell still leaves you with an ugly ass Dell. In the previous clone days, full Apple hardware wasn't "sexy", and had no real appeal over the whitebox clones.

There has to be a decent percentage of Intel Mac hardware out there running just XP. In my MS environment at work I've been using ALU iMacs running XP for kiosks; we're picking up more to run our 8 computer labs primarily running Vista.

The lowend is where Apple is suffering; the macMini hasn't been refreshed in forever. Selling OSX to Dell would let Apple get a solid cut of this market, as well as providing a gateway drug for people to buy Mac hardware.

Let say they sell OEM licenses for $129... the people then have to buy the $60 iLife... plus if .ME is a reasonable service, the $60 per year for that. Then you have to figure that someone who's running OSX is going to be more likely to buy an iPhone (WinMo devices don't work for crap), more likely to buy a AirPort Extreme, more likely to buy next years iLife, etc. Thats alot of revenue generated from a market that they're leaving untouched.

Also, look at their "I'm a Mac, I'm a PC" campaign. The last few rounds of ads have been very Vista vs Leopard...

 

[autrefois]

I've been reading macrumors since.... 2003, i think. This is the most ridiculous theory I've read here (including user submitted posts).

So have I. If this is the most ridiculous theory you've read here, you haven't been looking closely enough.

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.

arn listed *several* reasons for this speculation (not a rumor or theory). It's not just the banners, it's other things as well (rumored dot-mac to me.com, rumored Intel-only 10.6, rumored feature-poor release). Not to mention that if "snow leopard" is correct, it is a very subtle change from "leopard", plus points others have brought up in the thread.

I don't think anyone is saying "yes, this will definitely happen". That would be foolish. We're just trying to look and see what's coming up. What's wrong with thinking outside the box and trying to see what direction Apple is going?

 

[kwong2006]

Of course, all of this would raise another speculation: is Steve Jobs dead? He would obviously allow OS X on PC over his dead body!

food for thought, people!

 

[EagerDragon]

You're thinking is narrow in focus. For example, on hardware sales. They probably are making $500 or less on a computer. Steve quoted that in $98 and I think margins are a lot tighter. Prices were higher back then across the board on the machines.

But now Apple is a great software manufacturer. iLife is $80 of pure profit to every PC user they could sell it to. Final Cut Studio is $1200 of found money to every PC user they could sell it to. Same with iWork. I'm guessing that many Apple users would switch to PC platform to save cash just like we did when clones were out. And that's the rub. I think Apple would eventually have to be a software manufacturer. They could also sell high end computers but not for as much as they do now. But I think they are ripening themselves to fall back as a software and gadget company.

But their potential market for software instantly grows to 100% instead of 7%. What share of those folks would buy OSX and not iWork or iLife? I'm guessing so many might dabble into FCS that it comes close to making up the hardware losses.

But MS will be fine. They're not just an OS company, they too are a sofware company. They'll be happy to sell a brand new $400 copy of office to every PC user that switches to Mac.

And don't worry

While I understand what you are saying, it would take time to take sufficient shares off M$ to continue making a living. They are not going to sell 26 million or more computers a year in just 1 to 3 years. Mean time there would be no computer (Mac) sales.

It does not matter that much given that Apple will not be selling OS X to OEM's.

 

[ckurowic]

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.

Boxes anyone can make? Um...then why haven't they? No one has come close to making machines that work as well as the Macintosh. You need to read up on your history, do you recall what happened when the clones were available? It would be moronic to allow OS X on "normal" PC's. Strategically brilliant? Then why aren't you working for Apple? <sarcasm>

 

[G58]

Most people have difficulty separating their wishes for the future from what is best for Apple [and therefore, users], and most likely given the evidence.

In 2003, some people were trumpeting the possibility that Apple might be switching to Intel. Many people thought it was a ludicrous idea and the phrase "snowball's chance in hell" was tossed around a lot. Many felt filthy, even violated just considering the notion that "Wintel crap" might one day contaminate their precious Macs...

Here's an example of what naysayers sounded like back in those days.

 

[xmarekxsx]

i think that they are just dropping a word to save a breath! haha but really i think that they are just branching the oses into os x for mac and then os x iphone ( even thou i think they should just change the name to os x touch for the use of cocoa touch and future product that excepts multitouch as an input or however you wanna say it ) but yeah no os x on pc, i just got my first mac on wednesday and im never going back! the whole reason why we spend the money we do for these products is because of innovation, apple isnt lazy in development, there leading the way and eveyone else is playing catch up!