Toggle sidebar Toggle sidebar
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

Licensing OSX onto non Macs

C

cube

Suspended
Original poster
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
 
Last edited by a moderator:
cube said:
I rather it be free in the sense of being able to pay for it to run on Thinkpads and Opteron workstations.
Click to expand...

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.
 
maflynn said:
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.
Click to expand...

To get people to continue to buy their hardware, their design should be led by the Woz philosophy, not SJ's.
 
cube said:
To get people to continue to buy their hardware, their design should be led by the Woz philosophy, not SJ's.
Click to expand...

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.
 
cube said:
Yes, but iOS development is not open.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Consumers stay away from Linux because propietary software is not ported to it, it has nothing to do with the platform itself.
 
cube said:
Yes, but iOS development is not open.
Click to expand...
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.
 
cube said:
Consumers stay away from Linux because propietary software is not ported to it, it has nothing to do with the platform itself.
Click to expand...

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
 
negativzero said:
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.
Click to expand...

iOS development is not open because you need a Mac.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
cube said:
Consumers stay away from Linux because propietary software is not ported to it, it has nothing to do with the platform itself.
Click to expand...
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.
 
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
 
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