Licensing OSX onto non Macs

Discussion in 'macOS' started by cube, May 4, 2013.

  1. cube, May 4, 2013
    Last edited by a moderator: May 4, 2013

    cube macrumors G5

    Joined:
    May 10, 2004
    #1
    I rather it be free in the sense of being able to pay for it to run on Thinkpads and Opteron workstations.

    [MOD NOTE]
    I moved this into its own thread as it was derailing the one in which this side bar discussion occurred
     
  2. maflynn Moderator

    maflynn

    Staff Member

    Joined:
    May 3, 2009
    Location:
    Boston
    #2
    This has been raised multiple times, but there's no advantage to apple for this. Even if they charged a 125 dollars for OSX like they used too.

    OSX and its apps are a means to get people to buy the hardware, by licensing OSX to run on other computers negates that advantage.

    Just before Steve's Jobs return, Apple tried this and it nearly drove them out of business. True their financial situation is a lot better today but the fact remains that they'll suddenly be in competition from other computer makers that they weren't in competition before.
     
  3. cube thread starter macrumors G5

    Joined:
    May 10, 2004
    #3
    To get people to continue to buy their hardware, their design should be led by the Woz philosophy, not SJ's.
     
  4. maflynn Moderator

    maflynn

    Staff Member

    Joined:
    May 3, 2009
    Location:
    Boston
    #4
    I disagree completely, Woz was a great engineer and produced the guts of the Apple I and Apple II, etc. SJ had the vision to enclose the Apple II in plastic and sell it to consumers - something that no one attempted before. I appreciate what Woz contributed to the computer industry and to apple but his vision was limited to only providing computers to hobbiests and even then he had to be convinced that they sell fully assembled computers and not kits. It was SJ who saw the bigger picture.

    Woz had no hand in the macintosh design as well, his baby was the apple II (and Apple III).

    My point is not to bash Woz but point out that it was SJ's philosophy for the apple II and Macintosh lines that put apple on the map. It was SJ's vision for music and music players, phones and tablets.
     
  5. cube thread starter macrumors G5

    Joined:
    May 10, 2004
    #5
    Woz is open, SJ is closed.

    Proper technology is open.
     
  6. negativzero macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Jul 19, 2011
    #6
    And OSX is based on Unix which is more "Open" than Windows will ever be :rolleyes:
     
  7. cube thread starter macrumors G5

    Joined:
    May 10, 2004
    #7
    Yes, but iOS development is not open.
     
  8. maflynn Moderator

    maflynn

    Staff Member

    Joined:
    May 3, 2009
    Location:
    Boston
    #8
    The advantages of closed are plain, the advantages of open are such as well. Apple has made a decision on which side of the fence they chose.

    There's no way to say if Woz pushed and won his philosophy how apple would have turned out. One thing is that he's no businessman and he readily acknowledged that.

    Windows is pretty locked down (activations and such) and yet its the most popular OS in the world for desktops. Linux is wide open, yet consumers largely stay away from it.

    Here we have a company that controls both the hardware and software and they're able to some fantastic things with both because they control all points of the design. While you may think that's a disadvantage, I think its an advantage.
     
  9. cube thread starter macrumors G5

    Joined:
    May 10, 2004
    #9
    Consumers stay away from Linux because propietary software is not ported to it, it has nothing to do with the platform itself.
     
  10. negativzero macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Jul 19, 2011
    #10
    Just because you can't modify the OS directly doesn't mean it isn't "open". Lots of code from OSX and iOS is derived from darwin whose source is freely available to anyone. Apple just decides to slap on a ton of encryption and copy protection measures.

    http://opensource.apple.com
    They've the latest ML and iOS up there for anyone to see.
     
  11. maflynn Moderator

    maflynn

    Staff Member

    Joined:
    May 3, 2009
    Location:
    Boston
    #11
    I think the platform has a lot to do with it. I've used Linux and it requires a fair amount of tweaks to get it work the way you want it too. Ubuntu has made a lot of inroads because they've largely simplified the OS. While I agree lack of apps, particularly third party commercial apps is a major cause. I know that people are hesitant to embrace it because it doesn't just work out of the box
     
  12. cube thread starter macrumors G5

    Joined:
    May 10, 2004
    #12
    iOS development is not open because you need a Mac.
     
  13. negativzero macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Jul 19, 2011
    #13
    Nope, you only need a Mac if you want to publish your app on the AppStore.
     
  14. cube thread starter macrumors G5

    Joined:
    May 10, 2004
    #14
    Where is Xcode for other platforms?
     
  15. printz macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Dec 23, 2012
    #15
    From what I've read, iOS is quite locked down, irrelevant whether it's based on some open source. Being unable to do such things as installing my own home programs into it without paying $$$ disqualified it as a choice for me.
     
  16. Fishrrman macrumors G3

    Joined:
    Feb 20, 2009
    #16
    I could see Apple "license" the Mac OS -- but only if the company reaches a point where they decide that the "Mac hardware" line is no longer worth retaining as an Apple-exclusive product.

    They might continue to develop the Mac OS, but choose to make it available "for a price" (probably wouldn't be cheap). I'm sure a market exists for that.

    Or -- they might choose to offer an "open software/hardware combo package" -- that is, an Apple designed and approved motherboard (standard PC dimensions), with a copy of the Mac OS included. The buyer would then assemble the board into an enclosure, add drives, etc. In essence, it would become what we now refer to as a Hackintosh -- only with an Apple-certified motherboard inside.

    Or -- they could offer this same kind of package deal to 3rd-party manufacturers who agreed to manufacture "turnkey computers".

    Again, I only see this happening if Apple loses interest in the "Mac line". Granted, it's not their largest revenue source these days, but that revenue is still substantial and it doesn't look like they'll be dropping it soon.
     
  17. freejazz-man macrumors regular

    Joined:
    May 12, 2010
    #17
    yes, I'm sure you would appreciate it.

    I'd also appreciate a free 16 core mac pro. Some things just aren't going to happen for obvious reasons.
     
  18. SMDBill macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Apr 12, 2013
    #18
    I think it's also because the perception by so many that Linux is a hacker's domain, something from the 90s that still comes up in discussions with people who have no idea how advance Linux distros really are, is a huge holdback to a great OS. In addition, it's difficult to convince people of its potential when they don't see it sold by every computer manufacturer as part of their standard delivered computers. To people who think, "Hmm, Acer doesn't sell computers with Linux on them," there's little argument that can convince them otherwise.

    I don't think it's at all the fault of Linux distros, but the lack of positive public perception about the positives the OS can provide (free, fast, powerful, almost endlessly customizable, variety, different desktop environments) also contribute to holding it back.

    I wasn't denying your claim, just adding to it.
     
  19. freejazz-man macrumors regular

    Joined:
    May 12, 2010
    #19
    sure bub, let me know when you can go on youtube with the out of the box distro

    the lack of positive public perception is absolutely related to the little effort they put into their interfaces
     

Share This Page