jayscheuerle
macrumors 68020
davidahn said:
The implication being that nobody at Apple has ever known anything about business?
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Mac OS X on a PC?
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
The implication being that nobody at Apple has ever known anything about business?
pubwvj said:
That's what we were wondering. That answers our question nicely.
pubwvj said:
I can't play protected AAC (that's for sure), but what about regular, non-DRM'ed AAC files? Does iTunes converts AAC to MP3 on the fly when you transfer to your Nomad? That'd be a nice feature, IMO. If it does, do you choose the conversion bitrate?
pubwvj said:
Ok, so you have to manually manage all songs. I'll take a guess and assume the smart playlists can't work on the Nomad either. But do regular, static playlists work on your Nomad?
pubwvj said:
That's good to know, but does that only work with iTunes on Mac? Did you try connecting your Nomad to iTunes on a Windows PC?
And last, is there an official list of officially "supported" players? Or does iTunes simply work with any USB memory storage device?
And talking about that, now that we've got the iPod shuffle in the mix, does anyone know if there's any way to "fake" an iPod shuffle with another USB player? How does iTunes detect the iPod shuffle if it's supposed to only be a USB storage device to the computer?
narco said:
This isn't necessarily true. It depends on the exploit but most exploits are written for software packages in Windows. If the exploit were writen in pure x86 assembly then you might have a problem. But for worms it wouldn't affect OS/X. If the exploit is dependent upon some Windows package (say excel, outlook, internet explorer, the unholy trio of pain) then it won't affect the Mac OS/X-x86 port.
I don't think apple will port to x86. It really depends how this new cell processor will fit into Apple's strategy. At this point it is all hype but if it does deliver then x86 will be dead in the water. Even Microsoft knows this, hence the reason they are hedging their bets with the whole .NET runtime. You don't need x86 hardware to run Microsoft code anymore; just a licensed .NET runtime. Who cares if the runtime is on Mac/Linux/Windows! They want the licensing revenue without the hassle of maintaining the OS. It will be a .NET gain for Microsoft. Sorry for the pun.
-jaromski
A couple of posts mentioned a cripple version of OSX for PC. I pretty sure that would be a bad idea. Nobody likes cripple ware and to the mom and pop buying a computer its a huge liability to buy something that only works some what.
This conversation has come up many times though not recently. I used to be of the opinion of porting OSX was a very good idea but I think that one of the nice things about Apple and its relatively small user base is its ability to be responsive to its customers. THey may not be responsive in ways we would like them to be (think of the many years without the 'cheap headless mac." but in other ways they are very responsive. They have excellent customer service, patch software quickly, and have excellent tech support. Plus I have become converted to the idea that complete control over the hardware as well as software makes for a much better package.
Of course, if Apple were to port OSX over, now is the time. IE browser user is falling rapidly, Windows is becoming synonomous with instability, and people are fed up with spam, spyware, and virii. THey could concieveably pick up a coupld of percentage point of marketshare very quickly. But is it worth it?
ps. I apologize if anyone has already spelled out these points. I haven't had time to wade through all 500+ entries.
This conversation has come up many times though not recently. I used to be of the opinion of porting OSX was a very good idea but I think that one of the nice things about Apple and its relatively small user base is its ability to be responsive to its customers. THey may not be responsive in ways we would like them to be (think of the many years without the 'cheap headless mac." but in other ways they are very responsive. They have excellent customer service, patch software quickly, and have excellent tech support. Plus I have become converted to the idea that complete control over the hardware as well as software makes for a much better package.
Of course, if Apple were to port OSX over, now is the time. IE browser user is falling rapidly, Windows is becoming synonomous with instability, and people are fed up with spam, spyware, and virii. THey could concieveably pick up a coupld of percentage point of marketshare very quickly. But is it worth it?
ps. I apologize if anyone has already spelled out these points. I haven't had time to wade through all 500+ entries.
Yvan256 said:
I do the conversion manually. I keep my library in MP3 format. All of my music is either: 1) CD's I had before iTunes and ripped in; 2) music I downloaded from eMusic.com (great legal downloading service); 3) music from iTunes store (to fill in the blanks); 4) music my wife composed and played (I'm a fan
). So most of it started in MP3 format or got ripped into MP3 from the original CDs. We also have some audio books from CD's, downloads (legal) and tapes. I set the bitrate based on the content, e.g., audio books don't need as much as music.Yvan256 said:
Correct. The Nomad is pre-iTunes so of course it doesn't know about such things. It presents all the music on the internal memory card and removeable memory card - two seperate lists when showing in iTunes when docked and all as one list in order setup when mobile.
If I had oodles of cash I might buy and iPod, likely a Shuffle, if I wanted those features. If the Nomad were to die I would replace it with an iPod Shuffle right now.
Yvan256 said:
No idea. Praise the dog.
Yvan256 said:
Check out: http://docs.info.apple.com/article.html?artnum=93548
I just found that list. The Nomad is at the top.
Given how old it is that is pretty impressive that iTunes works. Hail SJ and Apple.Cheers,
-Walter
in Vermont
with sunny skies and
24" of fresh powder
on the mountain
davidahn said:
I don't know how far away we are from that now. How long would the Mac platform last if Adobe made the decision that the Mac platform wasn't worth the effort or IBM decided that it was in its best interests not to make desktop computer CPUs anymore like Motorolla? At 3% we don't have a lot of room for error here and the "idiotic general public" isn't going to magically come around to our way of thinking to raise marketshare.
It's not a crippled version of OS X -- it's the updated version of the NeXT OS/Rhapsody, basically Cocoa.asphalt-proof said:
The only thing it wouldn't include is Classic/Carbon, both of which are nothing more than Apple's version of Virtual PC -- ie, getting applications that have been around forever running on Mac OS X.
If Apple included Classic/Carbon -- they're releasing a clone system and all the Apple hardware buyers would buy $500-1000 PCs. And there is no reason for developers to write Cocoa applications if Apple did this.
Releasing a Cocoa only PC OS, forces developers to think about writing the next generation of application instead of keeping some apps that have been around for 20 years limping along.
You write a new app, compile it as a fat app package, and it'll run on PPC and x86.
So it's not about adding x86, it's about enriching the developer base.
---
When Rhapsody Mac OS X Server 1.0 first shipped -- the though of Cocoa only apps caused a lot of developers to drop Apple support.
Now would developers be willing to entertain writing Cocoa x86/PPC apps as an alternative to Linux -- because that's what Apple would be competing against.
A Unix OS with a decade+ old GUI... which is a rather solid alternative to Windows.
---
But doing this puts Apple is MS's crosshairs... and MS does quite a few nasty things in their attempts to kill anybody that competes directly against them in the Wintel world.
Overview and Delegation.
You could cite examples of managerial ineptitude or you could show examples like that of BMW again. Because you are creating a second OS doesn't mean it need be a second rate attempt by some second string working group. When considering the positioning of one OS and it's feature set, it isn't done in isolation. Both OS's are developed (conceptually) along side each other, to compliment each other and work with each other technically and strategically. Aware of the different appeal each must have and needs and desires of the users. The PC Mac will still be an introduction to better things with Mac OS X, for those of interest, but it's a workable solution in it's own right and styled in such a way as to be the pinnacle of some peoples desire.
A road map for the positioning of the products, might be a key concern. For example: Apple decide to do an entertainment driven PC and a creative professionals driven Mac. The PC is made by other manufactures, the OS licensed to them, but Apple start making their first PC's as a figure head for the public to focus on and to market their own stylish boxes, should anyone want the nicest style and many will, think iPod. Tiger is out for the Mac and a reduced, tailored, feature set available on the PC. The Mac does media work faster, but the PC has TV recording on its inception! Half the speed for Photoshop maybe, but does the things the public want and expect it to do. A month later Mac OS X is upgraded and gets TV recording, but the public see that Mac on PC is dedicated to them. The Mac won't be sold on it's ability to be a TV, the iMac might, but each is seen as a positioned product, a feature set promoted to it's dedicated target use and styled for the market. The actual abilities of each OS would be close to identicle as a computer is a computer, but presented with a dedicated emphasis. Maybe Apple would keep Automator available on Mac OS X only as a productivity incentive and it will never be seen on the PC, but I hardly think that makes the Mac PC OS cripple ware or less desirable for the general user. It really doesn't take much to manage this relationship between products, but it must not be neglected. The products must be positioned so they do not compete.
Overview and delegation by the core creative people is a given prerequisite. We have seen the success of many of Apples products and how well they interrelate. Apple are used to handling different projects and managing a creative overview. If any company can do it, I would say Apple can.
I quite agree.dicklacara said:
You could cite examples of managerial ineptitude or you could show examples like that of BMW again. Because you are creating a second OS doesn't mean it need be a second rate attempt by some second string working group. When considering the positioning of one OS and it's feature set, it isn't done in isolation. Both OS's are developed (conceptually) along side each other, to compliment each other and work with each other technically and strategically. Aware of the different appeal each must have and needs and desires of the users. The PC Mac will still be an introduction to better things with Mac OS X, for those of interest, but it's a workable solution in it's own right and styled in such a way as to be the pinnacle of some peoples desire.
A road map for the positioning of the products, might be a key concern. For example: Apple decide to do an entertainment driven PC and a creative professionals driven Mac. The PC is made by other manufactures, the OS licensed to them, but Apple start making their first PC's as a figure head for the public to focus on and to market their own stylish boxes, should anyone want the nicest style and many will, think iPod. Tiger is out for the Mac and a reduced, tailored, feature set available on the PC. The Mac does media work faster, but the PC has TV recording on its inception! Half the speed for Photoshop maybe, but does the things the public want and expect it to do. A month later Mac OS X is upgraded and gets TV recording, but the public see that Mac on PC is dedicated to them. The Mac won't be sold on it's ability to be a TV, the iMac might, but each is seen as a positioned product, a feature set promoted to it's dedicated target use and styled for the market. The actual abilities of each OS would be close to identicle as a computer is a computer, but presented with a dedicated emphasis. Maybe Apple would keep Automator available on Mac OS X only as a productivity incentive and it will never be seen on the PC, but I hardly think that makes the Mac PC OS cripple ware or less desirable for the general user. It really doesn't take much to manage this relationship between products, but it must not be neglected. The products must be positioned so they do not compete.
Overview and delegation by the core creative people is a given prerequisite. We have seen the success of many of Apples products and how well they interrelate. Apple are used to handling different projects and managing a creative overview. If any company can do it, I would say Apple can.
Yvan256 said:
I said that apple designs thier systems, they have others build them to thier specifications. All of the components. As does dell. Same deal. The point I am trying to make is the only difference from apple to dell is that apple also makes software. But thier hardware divisions are very similar and that apple could quite easily make PC's.
jayscheuerle said:
I think thats a fair assessment. Given that Apple several times over the last 20 years has had a superior product but couldnt
A. market it right
B. Price it right
Sure they look like winners right now... but what happens when the ipod market dries up. And it will dry up.
For long term growth of the company I firmly believe that they need to expand their market/markets and releasing OS X for the PC would be a great start. I really dont see any downside for it.
On one hand if it's successful it gains them tons of market share.
On the other hand if its not successful they really havent lost anything anyway. They just drop the X86 support just like Microsoft dropped supporting PPC and Mips with Windows.
I also believe the main reason that so many Mac/Apple fans are against this is because they fear it would decrease Mac sales. Although this might happen...... because even though Macs are pretty and stylish they also are inferior in performance especially when considered by the price/performance ratio.
BUT
realisticaly I dont think it would decrease Mac sales... because Mac users typically are zealots and wouldnt dream of buying anything not 100% Apple.
No $#&^^&$%#^&&!!! way
It's never going to happen,
for all of you that are "all for it" i say... stop thinking cheap.
If you want to be a part of the masses then buy a PC for the internet a Mazda for the road stop smoking and become a vegetarian.
On the other hand live your life without worrying about how many people have the same computer, or like the things you do.
It's never going to happen,
for all of you that are "all for it" i say... stop thinking cheap.
If you want to be a part of the masses then buy a PC for the internet a Mazda for the road stop smoking and become a vegetarian.
On the other hand live your life without worrying about how many people have the same computer, or like the things you do.
Possibly the scariest thing I read this week. OS X on x86 would ruin apple. Its allready been stated the dangers of spyware and hackers, but x86 as a platform is inferior and would ruin OS X. I certainly hope apple does not go through with this. (if they are considering this at all).
Dunno if this has been said already (don't feel like reading trough 500+ posts), but this exact thing has happened before. NeXT sold a combination of a great OS running on great hardware. Just like Apple does right now. Somewhere in the 90'ies Steve Jobs decided to port the operating system to no less than three other platforms: x86, HPPA and SUN. As you probably know, the x86 port was still in place when the operating system was developed into Rhapsody at Apple.
Now, I don't know that much about NeXT' history, but I don't think it's right to say that it went downhill because of porting NeXTStep to other platforms, and even killing their own hardware. They have researched possibilities of creating new 88000 or 604 based NeXTStations, but they didn't. I also recall that there weren't much applications that weren't ported from the NeXT platform to the other platforms. The transistion was easy, it was essentially only a recompile for developers. I think porting the OS was a sensible thing to do for NeXT at the time.
I know we all agree that technically it wouldn't be difficult to do the port, but what I'm saying is that Steve has done this before. The situation wasn't very different. Their own hardware was lacking speed, and x86 was cheap and fast.
Don't get me wrong, I'd be surprised if this would happen in the near future, and I like things fine as they are right now. But personally, I don't entirely rule out the possibility.
For the same reason, I'm still waiting for the Apple two button mouse. Steve Jobs has done this before: at NeXT.
Now, I don't know that much about NeXT' history, but I don't think it's right to say that it went downhill because of porting NeXTStep to other platforms, and even killing their own hardware. They have researched possibilities of creating new 88000 or 604 based NeXTStations, but they didn't. I also recall that there weren't much applications that weren't ported from the NeXT platform to the other platforms. The transistion was easy, it was essentially only a recompile for developers. I think porting the OS was a sensible thing to do for NeXT at the time.
I know we all agree that technically it wouldn't be difficult to do the port, but what I'm saying is that Steve has done this before. The situation wasn't very different. Their own hardware was lacking speed, and x86 was cheap and fast.
Don't get me wrong, I'd be surprised if this would happen in the near future, and I like things fine as they are right now. But personally, I don't entirely rule out the possibility.
For the same reason, I'm still waiting for the Apple two button mouse. Steve Jobs has done this before: at NeXT.
~loserman~ said:
Somebody doesn't know their history.
That's just one article, but the fact of the matter is that the last time Apple licensed the operating system, the cloners ate at their bottom line without growing the market appreciably. Rather than targetting the areas Apple had traditionally been weak in (mostly the extreme low and high end), the licensees went ahead and undercut the mothership while ignoring that they needed Apple to stay alive. In just two to three years, the Apple share of the Macintosh market dropped by more than 30% while the overall marketshare didn't grow much at all.
From the article I linked:
Apple executives have said they want to get more money for each clone machine that uses the Mac-intosh operating system. But some analysts believe Apple -- once again under the command of co-founder Steven Jobs -- wanted to kill licensing of the Macintosh altogether.
During the conference call Tuesday, Anderson said Apple was losing hundreds of dollars whenever a Macintosh clone was sold because the clone makers paid only about $50 per machine.
"The clone vendors did not sell many systems to new customers -- somewhere around 99 percent of their sales were to the existing Mac-intosh customer base," Anderson said.
During the conference call Tuesday, Anderson said Apple was losing hundreds of dollars whenever a Macintosh clone was sold because the clone makers paid only about $50 per machine.
"The clone vendors did not sell many systems to new customers -- somewhere around 99 percent of their sales were to the existing Mac-intosh customer base," Anderson said.
So... How is this a good idea? You'd like to undo all of the good work that Steve Jobs has done since returning to the company?
I agree at this point there is no point of putting OSX on a PC. Its why its so sweet on the Mac. They make the whole widget .I see Apple gaining market acceptance and share.Doing this now would undo what they have. how you doing thatwendigo?
X86 Port
I would assume that when Apple initiated OSX project they also took care to build it in a way which would allow them to port OSX codebase to another HW with resonable efford.
This is entirely possible, there are many complex OSes which run on different platforms and I would even say that it would have been foolish from the Apple's side to hardcode OSX to PPC.
I would even go farther as to say that IMHO, Apple does OSX "nightly builds" on PPC as well as X86 and maybe some other platform.
Macrumors said:
I would assume that when Apple initiated OSX project they also took care to build it in a way which would allow them to port OSX codebase to another HW with resonable efford.
This is entirely possible, there are many complex OSes which run on different platforms and I would even say that it would have been foolish from the Apple's side to hardcode OSX to PPC.
I would even go farther as to say that IMHO, Apple does OSX "nightly builds" on PPC as well as X86 and maybe some other platform.
PCMacUser said:
Basic Economics, further broken down for the hard of thinking:
Hardware revenue on CPU sales:
Total - 1,046,000 units ($1.6 billion)
iMac - 456,000 units ($620 million)
iBook - 271,000 units ($297 million)
Power Mac - 167,000 units ($381 million)
PowerBook - 152,000 ($307 million)
Hardware revenue on iPods and music:
iPod - 4,580,000 units ($1.211 billion)
"Other Music Products" - unknown units ($177 million)
Other hardware (peripherals, etc.):
Total - unknown units ($284 million)
Software sales:
Total - unknown units ($213 million)
To put this in perspective, the PowerBook and iBook lines are separately worth almost half again what the software division is. The PowerMac line is edging towards doubling it and the iMac is almost triple the revenue of the software division. Jesus, man, the peripherals like Airport and other gadgets make more money than the software division. That's all software, too, and not just the operating system...
If Apple were to succeed on software alone, they'd have to make up nearly two billion dollars in sales at a rate of growth even more expansive than the iPod has had. The software division would have to explode to roughly nine times its profitability in a single quarter just to eat the loss of hardware revenue.
thatwendigo said:
This is overly simplified. The actual math is closer to 8 times the current revenue to make up for the $1.6B hardware revenue loss, but it wouldn't have to match the hardware revenue to beat hardware profit. You also have to take into account the fact that Apple wouldn't get out of the hardware market, so it would still be generating healthy revenue from that.
Then there's the matter of your logic. It doesn't work out, because profit margins and internal expenses are not anywhere close to the same for hardware and software. Hardware is bigger and heavier, which means warehouse square footage is larger and more expensive. Shipping is more expensive (and Apple does it for free). Fabrication and design costs are high, and there's the markup Apple has to make for buying most of its components from other vendors. In other words, it is much easier to profit from software, because unit volume will more easily recoup development costs, so the profit margin is much higher. Next, take into account supply fluctuations throughout the tech market and the high potential for failed innovation. When the hardware doesn't keep up or offer an improvement, no one buys it. So, the original poster is correct in that it is easier to profit from software sales than from hardware. But you of course are correct in pointing out that Apple does indeed care about its hardware sales. They are central to the company. Without the hardware, what would they be selling software for? But, in summation, revenue and profit are not directly linked.
You are correct that Apple's hardware business is much more profitable than their software (assisted by much higher revenue), but Apple's actual profit on hardware is probably around 20-25%, meaning about $320M or so. Apple's software profit margin is bound to be higher, perhaps even as high as 50%, which would give them over $100M profit from software. So software profits aren't 9 times lower, but much closer than that.
And for the very hard of thinking
If you wanted to consider the software on each computer at somewhere between $50 - $100 that would be $50 000 000 - $100 000 000 extra software revenue and would eat into the real profit from hardware.
Weren't the actuall profits for Apple in the last quarter about $60 000 000?
We can argue that hardware makes no profit what so ever, and is only a vehicle for software sales. Figures can be made to say anything, but remember if these sales were lost to licensed companies and a license cost $50... and with this then having a chance to grow market share as direct competition to Windows on the same platform... We would expect sales to balloon. Instead of selling a million units they could be looking at 10 million and more in some time. Though there is no need for a loss in their hardware sales... All they need to do is create a positioned OS offering which doesn't compete with OS X - a 'Pro' and 'Home' version or however you want to differentiate them - 'Creative Pro' and 'Digital Hub'...
Then of course Apple can make PC's too - potentially doubling, tripling, quadrupling... hardware sales... Is it really so difficult to see this?
What must be learnt is Apple made a mistake in creating it's own competition with the clones. Apple need to sell into a new market sector and what does that take? Positioning..! of the product... (for the hard of thinking).
At the moment the software is free when you buy a Mac.thatwendigo said:
If you wanted to consider the software on each computer at somewhere between $50 - $100 that would be $50 000 000 - $100 000 000 extra software revenue and would eat into the real profit from hardware.
Weren't the actuall profits for Apple in the last quarter about $60 000 000?
We can argue that hardware makes no profit what so ever, and is only a vehicle for software sales. Figures can be made to say anything, but remember if these sales were lost to licensed companies and a license cost $50... and with this then having a chance to grow market share as direct competition to Windows on the same platform... We would expect sales to balloon. Instead of selling a million units they could be looking at 10 million and more in some time. Though there is no need for a loss in their hardware sales... All they need to do is create a positioned OS offering which doesn't compete with OS X - a 'Pro' and 'Home' version or however you want to differentiate them - 'Creative Pro' and 'Digital Hub'...
Then of course Apple can make PC's too - potentially doubling, tripling, quadrupling... hardware sales... Is it really so difficult to see this?
What must be learnt is Apple made a mistake in creating it's own competition with the clones. Apple need to sell into a new market sector and what does that take? Positioning..! of the product... (for the hard of thinking).
thatwendigo said:
The funny thing about software is its so much cheaper to make than hardware. And the profit margin on software is way higher than hardware. Industry wide hardware has around a 5% profit margin. Whereas in large markets software can reach profit margins of several hundred %.
Apple can't survive on software sales because they dont have a market for it.
That is unless they decide to
A. Make windows software.
or
B. Decide to compete in the OS market against Windows.
They will never do A.
And I dont think they have the moxy to ever try B.
So therefore they will remain an also ran company that is content to keep a 5% market share.