OSX Intel

[fallenconcept]

I posted this on another board as well and Id like to see what people in this community feel about it.

Do you feel Apple will allow OSX to be installed on a PC Platform?

The thing to think about here is Microsoft is not going to lock out installation on the Apple hardware because we all know they would love them gone despite what they say. As of right now Apples Licenses for OSX states you can only install the software on Apple Hardware. As with Microsoft we all know Apple would love to have Windows gone and take its places as a the worlds OS. This is where people begin to argue saying Apple is a hardware company. This may have been true in the past but Apple has been slowly using other companies parts and doing less inhouse. What we have to look at is if Apple believe allowing the OS to be installed on a PC platform will make them more money they will do it. Dell has also been rumored to want to use the OS. This would cost them great sums of money at the current moment, but if they do it could be the death of Windows. Most corporations use Dell which means they would be using OSX and most people like to use the same OS at home and work. If Apple were to block PC use, but allow Dell to use the OS this would also force Apples hand to allow the OS for PC. It is an interesting time for the computer world and no one really knows what will happen.

ps watch for the next release of OSX if they add PS2 support its safe to assume they plan to allow use on PC seeing as PS2 ports are not used on Apple hardware.

 

[iMeowbot]

The thing to think about here is Microsoft is not going to lock out installation on the Apple hardware

Microsoft have said that they're not going to help.

Q: Will you make a version of Vista for Apple computers, now that they're using Intel processors?

Jim Allchin: We have no plans to move Vista to the Macintosh hardware.

Microsoft will be wanting to sell Virtual PC to Macintel users. They're not going to screw that up by making it easier to work without it.

 

[fallenconcept]

there are still power pcs out there that the reason for virtual PC and i can tell you this neither company is going to say outright that they are going to allow installation on the other You have to look at the wording of what he said" We have no plans to move". If you look at this saying no plans is when they dont want to give a yes or no awnser and he said move to Macintosh Hardware when vista should install right out of the box seeing as its an intel chip and motherboard. They will though because they may play friendly in the public eye, but both companies do want to have the number one OS in the world.

As for Apple there are rumors of Apple developing code into there OS to run windows based programs in OSX without an emulator. This would only work on the new intel based Macs, but its something that maybe possible after most of the Power PC are out of the market place. They do have to be careful because if they choose to reverse engineer windows microsoft will throw law suits at them like crazy.

 

[bousozoku]

If Dell is really interested, perhaps they should stop selling their x86 PC hardware and concentrate on re-selling Apple equipment. (I'd love to see Michael Dell's face when he was told that.)

I heard that HP was extremely interested but I think that Apple will never become a software company, though they might sell their engineering services the same way that Porsche does.

 

[fallenconcept]

your right apple will never become a software comapany nore will they become a hardware company they are a design company! the hardware they use is mostly out of house they just design the computer. They will always do this. Its not so far fetched that they would sell software that can also run on a PC. Right now the PC has more of a user base. Why would apple not want to take advantage of those sales. They did add windows support to the ipod after the 1st gen didnt they and how did that do for them. The Ipod now owns almost all the market. Think of the ipod as the OS and windows and osx at the systems. Apple did so well there why wouldnt they apply this with there OS.

 

[iMeowbot]

When Microsoft announced a five year commitment to keep updating Mac Office, everyone wondered what was in it for Microsoft except for a small revenue stream. An agreement over operating systems would be the rest of it.

It's beneficial for Apple to keep OS X on the Mac. Those hardware sales are still very profitable, which isn't something that many other computer makers can claim.

It's beneficial for Microsoft to avoid letting Windows boot on the Mac. It helps to slow down the adoption of Apple hardware in businesses. Macs in business weaken the case for buying Office etc. in the first place, because Macs can (of course) run OS X. This isn't a half-baked alternative environment like Linux offers, it's the real deal.

Things may change in five years when the current agreement runs out, but for now the two parties have the type of environment that works for both.

but both companies do want to have the number one OS.

No, that's the Microsoft game plan. The Apple strategy is all about control and lock-in through hardware-software integration, they have been very explicit about this over the years.

 

[Rocksaurus]

When Microsoft announced a five year commitment to keep updating Mac Office, everyone wondered what was in it for Microsoft except for a small revenue stream.

Not to discount the rest of your theory but Microsoft makes millions off of Office for Mac. I know it's not nearly what they make off of Office for Windows but not even Microsoft is going to turn down that chunk of change.

 

[iMeowbot]

The relatively small revenue stream matters because it would be a much larger revenue stream, if those Mac Office users instead bought Windows-based systems.

 

[fallenconcept]

No matter what apple will still sell hardware for the look of it regardless of what happens there hardware will sell for that reason. Like i said look at the IPod think of it being OSX. Apple first released a mac only version soon after there was windows support. The Ipod has grown to have most of the market place this is a progression all companies want. Apple wants to progress make more money like any company and believe me they will do what they need to get the market place. They have an oppertunity they didnt have before and I believe they will take it and windows vs mac will be taken to a whole new level with more choice.

 

[bousozoku]

No matter what apple will still sell hardware for the look of it regardless of what happens there hardware will sell for that reason. Like i said look at the IPod think of it being OSX. Apple first released a mac only version soon after there was windows support. The Ipod has grown to have most of the market place this is a progression all companies want. Apple wants to progress make more money like any company and believe me they will do what they need to get the market place. They have an oppertunity they didnt have before and I believe they will take it and windows vs mac will be taken to a whole new level with more choice.

They don't sell hardware for the look of it.

They had the opportunity to grow their marketshare with the clones in the mid-1990s. It was a disaster for Apple. Their marketshare dwindled, they lost focus, and they had all sorts of compatibility problems, especially when Motorola started to sub-licence the operating system and system hardware designs.

Creating iTunes for Windows wasn't the same thing putting an operating system on different hardware but even so, they've been hassled by numerous problems with hardware incompatibilities with CD and DVD burners.

Why in the world would they want to take on thousands of hardware configurations for $129 retail? They wouldn't. Microsoft charges $299 for their equivalent product, Windows XP Pro. How many consumers are willing to pay that? How long until Apple ended up with the same poor reputation as Microsoft. They've already gotten a bloody nose here and there for iTunes on Windows.

If they put Mac OS X on other machines, they won't sell enough hardware to be profitable and they won't be able to charge enough for Mac OS X to be profitable. If they're not profitable, they close their doors.

 

[iMeowbot]

Expanding the iPod to the Windows market was all about selling Apple hardware, that being the iPod itself. Proof of this is that it initially relied on MusicMatch, non-Apple software, to make the product work.

Apple only worried about bringing iTunes to Windows when there was a hardware lock-in angle, namely iTMS DRM, to help make iPod sales more attractive (or at least less unattractive than buying competing hardware that won't play those DRM'd tracks).

This sort of closed system is exactly the type of thing they like at Apple, and it's exactly why porting OS X to generic hardware wouldn't be attractive to them. It's all about control.

 

[dr_lha]

Not to discount the rest of your theory but Microsoft makes millions off of Office for Mac. I know it's not nearly what they make off of Office for Windows but not even Microsoft is going to turn down that chunk of change.

Yes. Mac Business Unit are one of the few profitable parts of Microsoft (the others being Windows and Office, which luckily prop up the rest of the company's loss making enterprises like Xbox.) Not only does it make no sense for them to close it down, but also having a Mac version of Office nicely keeps the DOJ off their backs.

 

[iMeowbot]

I don't understand why people think that Office on the Mac helps Microsoft with their antitrust situation, when in fact it just the opposiite is true.

In the 1998 trial, once of the charges against Microsoft was that the Apple-Microsoft alliance included the continuation of Mac Office in exchange for taking Netscape off the main desktop. If they had simply retired the product there would have been no charge to make.

It's a popular notion that the two companies are arch rivals, but in real life they have a long history of collaboration going back to the Apple II days.

 

[dr_lha]

You are of course correct.

However, a lot of people often suggest that Office for Mac is not in Microsoft's best interest because it keeps the Mac as a viable platform, and are worried that MS might stop making Office for that reason. However if MS decided to pull Office to spite Apple, that would put them under the DOJ spotlight again. After all, to stop making a profitable product makes no business sense, it would be a pure abuse of monopoly powers, the sort of thing that got them in trouble in the first place.

 

[RacerX]

ps watch for the next release of OSX if they add PS2 support its safe to assume they plan to allow use on PC seeing as PS2 ports are not used on Apple hardware.

You do realize that Apple removed PS2 support from Mac OS X... it was originally there back when it was designed for generic PC hardware.

Apple has taken steps to tie Mac OS X for Intel to Mac hardware, and then made no attempt to make Mac hardware PC Compatible (compatible with Windows that is).

This is where people begin to argue saying Apple is a hardware company. This may have been true in the past but Apple has been slowly using other companies parts and doing less inhouse.

Example of such a change?

Apple has always used products and technologies from third party hardware venders to make Macs. Apple didn't make SCSI. That was an existing standard. Apple didn't make Nubus. That was technology made by Texas Instruments. Apple didn't make either the 68000 series processors or the PowerPC processors. Those were from Motorola and IBM. To my knowledge Apple has never produced their hard drives, or floppy drives, or CD/DVD drives. These all came from other manufacturers.

Apple did come up with ADB. And other companies used it (NeXT adopted it in their hardware). Apple also came up with Firewire. And again, other companies started using it.

But to argue that Apple is doing something different today in the way they make their hardware, you need to show where Apple was doing all this inhouse stuff originally.

Just because Apple made different choices in the past in selecting what hardware went into Macs doesn't mean that hardware was made by (or even unique to) Apple. Apple went with Motorola processors originally because they were the only processors at the time that could power the Mac GUI. Was Apple alone in using Motorola processors in their systems? No. Both NeXT and SGI used the same processors for the same reasons as Apple.

 

[yellow]

Not the PS2 thing again..

 

[FadeToBlack]

This topic has been beaten to death.

 

[howesey]

ps watch for the next release of OSX if they add PS2 support its safe to assume they plan to allow use on PC seeing as PS2 ports are not used on Apple hardware.

Why would they want to support PS2? Almost all decent x86 computers these days do not come with one - my two desktops and two laptops do not have one.

 

[DeathChill]

Uh there's already PS2 drivers for OS X that are maintained by Apple. They're open source and on Apple's Darwin site.

As well, for those saying about the clone disaster in the 90's I shall say my favourite quote from "The Simpsons": (door is locked with Maggie inside and they tried to get in using a coathanger but failed)
Marge: "How'd you get her out?"
*Lisa's standing with an unlocked door brandishing the coathanger*
Lisa: "I tried the coathanger again. I don't understand why we only try ideas once."

They licensed Mac OS ALL WRONG. They rejected applications from HP and Compaq, and gave licenses to small computer makers who really didn't care about Apple at all and couldn't sell enough to make it profitable for Apple, and they undercut Apple. Give a license to Dell, HP, Compaq and all the other big name computer makers and set some limitations and you'll have a good system with large profit.

 

[Rocksaurus]

The relatively small revenue stream matters because it would be a much larger revenue stream, if those Mac Office users instead bought Windows-based systems.

Many Mac users use it because it's not Windows, if Bill Gates elminates Office Mac, most diehard Mac users aren't going to go anywhere. Another company will make a product that plays well with the newer Office files and make the money Microsoft wouldn't be.

 

[iMeowbot]

Many Mac users use it because it's not Windows, if Bill Gates elminates Office Mac, most diehard Mac users aren't going to go anywhere. Another company will make a product that plays well with the newer Office files and make the money Microsoft wouldn't be.

Most of the license volume comes from businesses, and those IT departments aren't going to abandon software that works on 80+% of their machines just because a few won't run it amy more. They'll simply replace those Macs with computers that will run the stuff.

"Office-compatible" software is universally not so compatible. If a genuine replacement was coming it would have been here a long time ago. There's been a 20 year opportunity to bag this one.

 

[Rocksaurus]

Most of the license volume comes from businesses, and those IT departments aren't going to abandon software that works on 80+% of their machines just because a few won't run it amy more. They'll simply replace those Macs with computers that will run the stuff.

"Office-compatible" software is universally not so compatible. If a genuine replacement was coming it would have been here a long time ago. There's been a 20 year opportunity to bag this one.

I see, so if Microsoft left, no one would step in. That makes sense. You're completely right.

 

[yellow]

I see, so if Microsoft left, no one would step in. That makes sense. You're completely right.

I believe Apple has so far tried (and not done such a great job) with the iWorks suite.

 

[bousozoku]

I see, so if Microsoft left, no one would step in. That makes sense. You're completely right.

We could hope that someone would try to replace Microsoft Office but there have been many chances and lots of talk for years and little else.

Consider that WordPerfect practically had a lock on the 16-bit/32-bit word processing market. They provided one of the most powerful non-WYSIWYG word processors and launched it on minicomputers then, DOS, Atari ST, Amiga, Macintosh, and eventually, Windows. Where are they today? They're relegated to a line or two in the history books and the budget software rack.

Lotus Development had a lock on the spreadsheet market, ripping it right out of the hands of the Visicalc product. They attempted to go to a multiple module package with Symphony on DOS and Jazz on Macintosh. They finally made it to the Windows word processing market by buying Samna and later used their expertise to create a GUI version of Lotus 1-2-3. Where are they now? You can't even find their software on the budget rack, except for Lotus Notes.

Star Office was a strong alternative to MS Office that came along in the mid-1990s. They promised 32-bit versions for just about every platform on the planet. OpenOffice runs on a few of those finally after Sun bought Star because Scott McNealy wanted to take down Microsoft. OpenOffice has good ability to translate MS Office documents.

Yes, it's obvious that someone else will offer an alternative, if Microsoft leaves Macintosh development to others.

 

[Rocksaurus]

I believe Apple has so far tried (and not done such a great job) with the iWorks suite.

Microsoft hasn't left. Not many companies are going to put a lot of resources into trying to oust MS Office from the Mac market if they're still there and doing a pretty good job with their software - which they are. That's way too much of an uphill battle. If MS leaves the market, and a large chunk of potential profits dangling out there and up for grabs with it, then would you still honestly disagree that competition would ensue? When there's money to be had, someone will have it.