Mac OS X on a PC?

[GregA]

marketshare of the the OS world, yes, but what will come of apple hardware? why buy a 3300 powermac when you can have the same OS experience for much less? i'd still buy the powermac, but plenty of people won't. apple hardware will become even more "BMW" in the computer world. i hope apple knows what its doing...

Exactly - you wouldn't buy Apple hardware with Mac OS unless it was cost effective. If it's not cost effective, then what's REALLY going on? Is some part of the total Mac experience costing too much?

We would be better off if apple just let PC makers build PPC machines. Then more software would be ported to PPC/MAC if more people would use it. <snip> As for worms and spyware, the security holes are fixed quickly by apple, and the OS isn't insecure by design, so that's not SO much of a problem as it is with Windows.

The only advantages I can see for clone PPCs (instead of OSX on x86) is that there's no recompile, and it will decrease the number of platforms OSX has to support (not ALL x86s). Then again, Openstep was created (from NextStep) specifically for cross platform capabilities. And Apple could still restrict which x86 machines OSX runs on (if PC manufacturers are approaching Apple, maybe there would be certain very specific hardware requirements? 64bit only? etc).

Really, I don't think HP (for instance) would consider making PPC machines unless Windows XP ran on them also (with x86 emulation).

I like the idea of Apple software and hardware working with as many other competitors as possible, while making Apple hardware+Apple software the 'Premier" place to run it all. They have to price their software realistically to their costs of writing and supporting it. These days at least they could sell iLife to all the clone buyers - but they could do that on Windows if they wanted too.

I also hate it when people say OSX is good only because it has so few supporters that virus software isn't written, and no bugs because it only runs on a couple of machines. That said, there is a lot of x86 crap out there, and even dangling their toes in that water may be dangerous!

 

[jadam]

Why would apple even bother with OS X on x86? The way I see it, is maybe they would license OS X for Sony, IBM, Toshiba, and maybe HP.... Then they could of course require that those machines are certified by apple's hardware quality labs in order to get a Certified by Apple Sticker on their machines.

 

[JW Pepper]

Don't rule anything out...

Apple has learned that they make products that are in real demand, the iPod didn't really take off until they made it PC compatible and had they not done so it would not be the market leader it is today.

the launch of the Mac Mini represents a huge change in strategy, but as such I think it is an experiment. To spell it out, by selling the Mac Mini Apple has signalled they they are starting to make more money out of their installed base then from new hardware sales. If they had full confidence in this strategy then we will see a G5 Mac Mini in time, they won't be worried about compromising PowerMac sales because they will be aiming at the largest number of users.

Revenue per-user is an important element regarding the subject of this thread. If we accept that the business model is changing then there is no barrier to making an x86 version of OSX available for licensing. It would be a numbers game. 100 million users of OSX on X86 would generate far more revenue than Apple achieves currently.

personally I don't think Apple is ready to do this but I would not go so far as to rule it out.

 

[TorbX]

The X86 is dead to Apple. Only the PPC line is worth it to them and this might include giving out OS X for Cell desktops made by Sony, Toshiba and IBM in the future.

YES!

My thoughts exactly!

 

[BWhaler]

Never, ever going to happen. Well, at least for at least 10 years.

 

[dlfitch]

Another thing: if Apple were to release OS X for x86, you can be sure that Microsoft would immediately retaliate by making Windows a lot cheaper. They can afford to run a loss for a while.

I don't know about that, M$ makes almost all their dough from windows and office. They stop making money on either of those and they will be running into the red very quickly.

 

[brentonbrenton]

imagine trying to support the myriad of hardware. what was the point of the mac mini - so you could waste money because you have too much?

 

[Sun Baked]

A Cocoa-only version of it might work, it was Apple's original OS strategy, but it would become an alternative to Linux not Windows.

Darwin, Mac GUI, Cocoa + stuff that Apple has already moved to Cocoa wouldn't be OS X -- because we depend too much on Carbon apps right now.

Without Carbon, there is no VPC, Office, Adobe, Quark, etc. -- so the OS would arrive in a application vacuum -- which would take years to fill.

And Linux has a headstart, but it is an alternative -- and one with a couple decades of history.

Something that "may" get a bunch of developers to jump on-board and give Apple several years to transition to a Software company.

Add Carbon to the x86 version of the OS and the Apple Hardware sales suddenly vanish... putting Apple into clone wars financial hardship instantly.

---

Still don't see it happening, because Apple at some point would shift to directly competing with Micrsoft -- which is usually fatal for most commercial OSs.

It would probably be safer for Apple to give Amiga OS 4.0 a boost and get the PPC side of the equation on more stable ground, and help reduce the PPC hardware costs.

Heck, allow them to ship the Mini with Amiga OS 4.0 for a year or two, until they develop their own HW.

 

[~loserman~]

Clones


Did nothing for Apple in the end...

While the clones did nothing ....
This is different.
The clones were just crappy MAC nockoffs...(WITH A CRAPPY OS)and the only people who were interested in them was people who were MAC users already and wanted a cheap MAC.

OS X is a good OS and would sell like hotcakes.

 

[Lynxpoint]

I say it would be a bad idea.

There is one excpetion though: if a company like Toshiba worked with Apple to deliver a new product derivied from both, like an Apple Tablet, that would be awsome! (and Apple could benefit by testing new products without absorbing all the costs)

 

[Spock]

----------


That little fantasy you all have of buying "Mac OS X for x86", running it on some homebuilt shitbox you cobbled together from spare parts, and having it work as well as a G5 runs Panther today will NEVER come to pass. Microsoft has spent twenty years and untold millions trying to achieve that goal, and they still have quite a way to go.

Well, if You read the post it said PC makers i.e Dell,HP, Lets say Apple agrees to let Dell put Mac OS X on their computers, I think Dell knows what componets go inside and could rewrite Mac OS X to run on the components. And upgrades would have to be Mac OS X Ready. Who says they dont have a PC in Dells labs running Mac OS?

 

[jwhitnah]

You hit the nail on the head!!!!!!! and welcome to Macrumors

He really did. Even though it means apple will always be relativly small, I'll take quality over quantity. Think of it as an acura or infiniti.

 

[sonicbaz]

Ohhh I really hope this is true, would be so cool, OS X would rule the world, if they can do this it will allow Apple to sell their hardware at a cheaper price, it would be the greatest thing ever.

sonicbaz

 

[jwhitnah]

Apple has learned that they make products that are in real demand, the iPod didn't really take off until they made it PC compatible and had they not done so it would not be the market leader it is today.

the launch of the Mac Mini represents a huge change in strategy, but as such I think it is an experiment. To spell it out, by selling the Mac Mini Apple has signalled they they are starting to make more money out of their installed base then from new hardware sales. If they had full confidence in this strategy then we will see a G5 Mac Mini in time, they won't be worried about compromising PowerMac sales because they will be aiming at the largest number of users.

Revenue per-user is an important element regarding the subject of this thread. If we accept that the business model is changing then there is no barrier to making an x86 version of OSX available for licensing. It would be a numbers game. 100 million users of OSX on X86 would generate far more revenue than Apple achieves currently.

personally I don't think Apple is ready to do this but I would not go so far as to rule it out.

I think we need to give the iPod and Mac mini time sway PC users. I predict our market share will significantly increase, largely due to the efforts. I just takes time before their impact can be detected.

 

[Yonizzle]

OS X for people with Wintel boxes. Great idea! Except ...

Apple already sells this. It comes in a box just slightly larger than the regular OS X Panther box, and with compatible hardware and iLife included! Only $499!

Having read the original article, this seemed a throwaway line, talking about an unrequited advance by a few Windows cloners, somewhat akin to Real's proposal to get together for an iTunes/iPod/RealONE hegemony.

..

Well, I was gonna (finally) register to reply to this thread, but then I finally read the post that said what I would've.

What's that? I did register to reply to this thread? Well I guess it bears repeating: opinions regarding the potential quality of Mac OS for Intel systems notwithstanding, it seems as though the release of the Mac mini was Apple's answer to that lingering question. People were saying, "you should make the Mac experience more accessible by porting the OS to commodity hardware," and Apple responded with, "Instead, we'll just do it by making the whole package available at less cost."

The other good point is that the article quote doesn't lend any support to the presumption that Apple is about to do this. It just says other companies want them to. The fact that folks who make money from the Wintel empire are looking to Apple for help just suggests that Apple's doing something right, meaning it's not the time for Apple to make such a drastic change..

 

[Blue Velvet]

While the clones did nothing ....
This is different.
The clones were just crappy MAC nockoffs...(WITH A CRAPPY OS)and the only people who were interested in them was people who were MAC users already and wanted a cheap MAC.

OS X is a good OS and would sell like hotcakes.

You don't think we'd see crappy PCs running OS X?

It wouldn't sell like hotcakes because it would be torrented like hot cakes...
Besides, what software would run on OSX on an x.86? None...

Pure nonsense.

 

[Mainyehc]

and I mean never. The closest we may get is he may allow PC makers to create PPC systems capable of running osx. but I doubt that too.

Why not? And as for Apple risking its hardware business... I don't think so. Don't forget, if OS X is the crown, Apple's applications ARE the jewels!! Apple would still be bundling iLife with every new Mac. I could easily see Apple bundling *both* iLife and iWork with every new Mac, and selling stripped-down OEM copies of Mac OS X to its hardware competitors. Apple couldn't be accused of monopolistic practices, like M$ was, or could it be??...

This would be sweet for Apple, *and* for their customers, IMHO. Some people would buy "PowerPC PCs" (weird terminology, I know), with OS X only, and then they could buy Apple software as desired. Macs, OTOH, would come with lots of freebies, so, they would be better value... For Apple, it would be a win-win situation, since they would still sell Macs (as they are so gorgeous and well designed), OS X copies, and Apple apps. And in the eventuality of Apple gaining a marketshare like that of Dell (if Dell can dominate the open x86 market, why couldn't Apple dominate a free PPC market?), thanks to the economies of scale, us Mac users wouldn't have to put up with insufficient RAM or crappy GPUs...

And what would this mean? Microsoft and Intel's demise! I don't know if to become 21st century's Microsoft would do Apple (or us, for that matter) any good, but anyway, it could be fun to watch

 

[GFLPraxis]

I HAVE AN IDEA

HP and Sony, those two are easy. But who's the third? Couldn't be Dell... Gateway? That would be funny. eMachines? That would be hilarious...

I think Apple should give companies permission to build specific OS X machines that fill niche markets which Apple doesn't target. Sony can build a Cell- based HDTV that runs OS X. HP can build high- end servers and workstations. Gateway or Toshiba could build mid- range desktops that aren't cheap but maybe $200 less than a PowerMac. Even Dell could make one of their two- inch thick laptops for the 'mobile gamers' out there.

Obviously nobody is gonna stop making windows machines, so I don't think the PC manufactures would care if Apple came in and said, "OK we have the badass software so everyone do as we say..." and then told the companies what they could and could not make. They wouldn't be 'clones', so to speak, but rather compliments to the OS X universe.

Listen to my theory.

I think they found out that Apple was talking about licensing OS X to others, and ASSUMED it was Intel processors.

Think about it. There have been HUGE amounts of hints from Stevie about an alliance with Sony. There already is an alliance with IBM. We also have seen a lot of hints that point toward Apple adopting Cell.

Let's put two and two together, shall we?

Who is making the Cell processor?

Three big PC companies:
IBM, Sony, and Toshiba.

I think Apple is switching to CELL processors and licensing Mac OS X to Sony, Toshiba, and IBM (the three companies in the Cell alliance), for use on Cell computers (after all, there will be no OS that runs on Cell- why not get Apple to write one for the new processor? It's already PowerPC based, anyway. You don't want to get under M$'s thumb, and Linux is too difficult for the average user...so go Mac), and the writers of the article heard 'porting to another processor' and assumed Intel.

I can pull up some articles written on the subject if necessary.

It makes perfect sense though.

 

[dontmatter]

First....

Please, for the sake of your blood pressure, relax.

That PC makers would make OS X based machines if apple let them isn't even news.

Trust me, apple has thought this out, MAJORLY. Open vs. closed platform defines apple more than any single other element, perhaps more than all other elements, as a buisness. Relax.

Apple has leaned two lessons the hard way, and it's not going to repeat the same mistakes twice-

Lesson one-Software costs a fixed ammount to produce, and therefore, with a successful open platform, it can be IMMENSELY more profitable than hardware. See microsoft. Opening up would have been far better for apple.

Two-Opening up WOULD have been far better. But, profitibility of software depends entierly on the volume you sell it in. If you aren't at the top, or have very, very good reasons to believe that when open, you would dominate the market, then... all you do is canablize your own very profitable hardware sales. Apple learned this with the clones, and steve remedied.

The ipod is evidence of both, in a way. Apple opened it up to PC makers, but, according to the second lesson, DOES NOT OPEN FURTHER. Why? Because the second lesson really goes like this-opening is only good with large market share, IN SOFTWARE. As sales increase in music, prices go up, and same with ipods. (prices per unit go down, by economies of scale, but in software, prices TOTAL stay the same, no matter how much is distributed).

Anyway, apple knows how to play the game now, and I guarentee the aren't going to do anything foolish in this realm. Closed, closed, closed, until they're at the limit of hardware market share, and then-OPEN!

Which, will probably never happen.

 

[pilotgi]

I'd love to be a fly on the wall when Bill Gates talks to Michael Dell about his decision to begin selling pcs with OS X.

"Dell recommends Windows XP Professional.... or Mac OS X for X86!

 

[j33pd0g]

How about a simple version of OS X that can do your basic stuff - you know - just enough to make you want Apple Hardware for the full version.

Ha, how about they release OS 9.2 for the PC...

 

[Blue Velvet]

Enough already!

Somebody please tell me what applications would run on this fantasy?

 

[GFLPraxis]

Yeah, OS X for Intel is ridiculous.

Remember, BINARIES, people! All current software would NOT RUN on an intel processor. You'd have OS X and nothing to run on it.

 

[bigandy]

nonononononononono

i hope so much this never happens. it will destroy apple. competing with the "bottomless financial pit" that is microsoft is asking to be destroyed. or worse, bought out. eeeewwwwwww microsoft osx. what a sobering thought

 

[neonart]

I don't understand why H-P, for example, would want OS-X on Intel when they can have the same market presence by licensing and rebranding the actual Apple box, just like they currently do with the iPod. No way would Jobs allow Apple clones, but I'm sure he'd have no problem sharing the marketing and branding with a partner.

Who wants to be in the PC business anyway -- the margins suck and Dell will always undercut you on price. But if you just want a presence in the marketplace, sell the H-P (or Toshiba or Samsung) Mac mini and focus your corporate R&D on the high margin servers.

This is it. I can't believe I missed this.

Apple does not have to license anything to anyone. Simply make their stuff. Who cares if you buy an Mac Mini or HP Mini? If they're both made by Apple and run OSX. Everybody wins!
Apple sells CPU's by the bucketload. HP gets some nice margins. The customers gets a solid OS. And Apple hardware is available all over the place. I can see this happening. It's worked just fine with the iPod. It can work with CPU's too.
Most companies that make PC hardware could care less if they sold it or not. It's why IBM gave up on boxes, hard drives, and soon laptops too. There will always be some cheap-as-free Dell giving stuff away.

Good insight chicagdan.