my reason is simple....i like to be in the minority. I don't play games, I don't need sweet as "Specs". I'm fine with my mac, and prefer having a computer that not many people have.
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.
what if....
- Thread starter DanB91
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Sorry. I read it as you thought he had committed an act of piracy by installing it on his PC which is, of course, different from breaking the license agreement.
I did read his post and, in fact, contributed to that thread. You are definitely correct there. If Apple licensed OSX or at least facilitated its use on a PC the pirate floodgates would open and open wide.
Let's say it happens. Apple releases a version of Mac OS X for the PC-market. How long would it take until Mac OS X takes a significant percent of the market? MOST people, wouldn't feel a need to "upgrade" their OS, even if Mac OS X is, in most mac-users' opinion, a much better operating system/environment. Yes, tech-savvy people will probably 'try' it, as a proof of concept rather than choosing OS X as their main OS. Maybe in the future, with all the iPod-zealots and iPhone-maniacs out there, Mac OS X will become mainstream; but not today, or tomorrow, or in the next few years, I'd say.
Hard-Core Gamers (uhmm...naughty); Probably not going to happen. Think about it, PC-hardware is cheap (relatively speaking), you can get Windows XP/Vista pre-installed on almost anything, and even if you need to buy it, the cost will be offset by the "cheaper" hardware. Gamers are familiar with Windows/PC. Windows/PC allows for certain "choices" that cannot be had on OS X. When was the last time you heard of a Mac-enthusiast over-clocking his/her Core2Duo CPU? Running Mac OS X ? Also, games would still need to be ported, or wrapped, etc. Everyone hates ports. Only AAA-titles get decent ports nowadays (most of them on consoles). You think EA is going to start developing for OpenGL, when they have a HUGE Dx10 market out there? And, really, Apple is not going to adopt Dx10...
About Linux, as others have said, it doesn't just "work". I installed Ubuntu (7.10) on my PC, and...audio didn't work. Video Card was recognized as a standard VGA card. Wireless didn't work. Flash works whenever it wants to. And, don't be fooled, the community is terrible. If you need an ATI driver, and you happen to make the mistake of posting on the Ubuntu forums, you're going to get a flood of anti-ATI responses, and the general advise is to buy some other Video Card. I don't want to adapt to my OS, I want my OS to adapt to my needs. That's precisely what Linux needs, and what makes Apple so different. By "locking-in" what hardware is allowed to run OS X on, they make sure the OS WORKS as intended.
Hard-Core Gamers (uhmm...naughty); Probably not going to happen. Think about it, PC-hardware is cheap (relatively speaking), you can get Windows XP/Vista pre-installed on almost anything, and even if you need to buy it, the cost will be offset by the "cheaper" hardware. Gamers are familiar with Windows/PC. Windows/PC allows for certain "choices" that cannot be had on OS X. When was the last time you heard of a Mac-enthusiast over-clocking his/her Core2Duo CPU? Running Mac OS X ? Also, games would still need to be ported, or wrapped, etc. Everyone hates ports. Only AAA-titles get decent ports nowadays (most of them on consoles). You think EA is going to start developing for OpenGL, when they have a HUGE Dx10 market out there? And, really, Apple is not going to adopt Dx10...
About Linux, as others have said, it doesn't just "work". I installed Ubuntu (7.10) on my PC, and...audio didn't work. Video Card was recognized as a standard VGA card. Wireless didn't work. Flash works whenever it wants to. And, don't be fooled, the community is terrible. If you need an ATI driver, and you happen to make the mistake of posting on the Ubuntu forums, you're going to get a flood of anti-ATI responses, and the general advise is to buy some other Video Card. I don't want to adapt to my OS, I want my OS to adapt to my needs. That's precisely what Linux needs, and what makes Apple so different. By "locking-in" what hardware is allowed to run OS X on, they make sure the OS WORKS as intended.
Sorry but the OP is way misguided. His logic is backwards and he's not thinking from a business aspect whatsoever.
Let's turn it around and look at what's happening right now. Apple's Macintosh computers are truly the most versatile machines on the market due to the fact they are built to dual boot and do virtualization. Has this helped increase market share for Macs? Yes. By a lot? fairly. Why not a whole lot? Price, expandability and freedom to do what the consumer wants rather it jacks up the machine or not.
I truly thought the Windows PC business was gonna crash big time when Apple announced their machines were fully supported to dual boot because at this point it would seem pointless to buy a common Windows only based machine when a Mac can do it all.
Here's the other way around which is not what's happening now. Apple licenses OS X to the masses but not dedicated to any company like Dell. So anyone that says, I want a $600.00 desktop machine or lappy and rather use OS X well than they just go and buy a copy of OS X and install it and it's all good.
Let's put aside the drivers that aren't available.
For most consumers price will always be the deciding factor and if the OP is that blindsided to think that the true Mac users would remain on Apple hardware for the gipper then think again.
Yes the Macintosh hardware is beautiful and I would prefer it as I have been buying Macs for years but if a decent looking PC comes along and an average consumer can spend half and get a "Mac" by installing Leopard on a Dell machine that's what anyone would do including long time Mac users.
Not everybody is so loyal that they just want to give Apple all the cash for the hardware but if there were no issues with drivers and everything "Worked" on non-Apple hardware than the reason to buy a physical Macintosh becomes a lesser reason. Apple would lose a lot of hardware sales.
WAKE UP OP!
Let's turn it around and look at what's happening right now. Apple's Macintosh computers are truly the most versatile machines on the market due to the fact they are built to dual boot and do virtualization. Has this helped increase market share for Macs? Yes. By a lot? fairly. Why not a whole lot? Price, expandability and freedom to do what the consumer wants rather it jacks up the machine or not.
I truly thought the Windows PC business was gonna crash big time when Apple announced their machines were fully supported to dual boot because at this point it would seem pointless to buy a common Windows only based machine when a Mac can do it all.
Here's the other way around which is not what's happening now. Apple licenses OS X to the masses but not dedicated to any company like Dell. So anyone that says, I want a $600.00 desktop machine or lappy and rather use OS X well than they just go and buy a copy of OS X and install it and it's all good.
Let's put aside the drivers that aren't available.
For most consumers price will always be the deciding factor and if the OP is that blindsided to think that the true Mac users would remain on Apple hardware for the gipper then think again.
Yes the Macintosh hardware is beautiful and I would prefer it as I have been buying Macs for years but if a decent looking PC comes along and an average consumer can spend half and get a "Mac" by installing Leopard on a Dell machine that's what anyone would do including long time Mac users.
Not everybody is so loyal that they just want to give Apple all the cash for the hardware but if there were no issues with drivers and everything "Worked" on non-Apple hardware than the reason to buy a physical Macintosh becomes a lesser reason. Apple would lose a lot of hardware sales.
WAKE UP OP!
ok maybe i was wrong. macs are extremely versatile. i guess all they need is expandability!!! thats it. then they have won. much less hardware to deal with. it would be alot better. apple just needs to work with a select few other companies such as ATI and nVidia to make this happen
what if apple decided to allow OS X on hardware other than macs? but they say that they wont license it to any computer company, thus actual macs would still exist. how would u react? i personally dream of the day apple does this. I WANT THIS SOO BAD TO HAPPEN!!! here's why:
1)more game developers would be attracted to the platform
2)more gamers would be attracted to the platform
3)some tech savvy users in general would probably install os x on their comps increasing the user base even more
4)non tech savvy users wouldnt bother w/ such an installation so they would just buy a mac
5)i would be able to build a kick ass comp w/o windoze and linux
i really cannot see a reason not to do this. but prob most of u would just shoot it down for some weird reason
I think eric cartman said it best when there was a music festival at South Park, "Hippie's have no money!".
Replace hippies with 'gamers' (damn I hate that term, to some how legitimise the wasting massive amounts on a pointless past time).
When you take into acount all the costs, the amount lost in terms of revenue and the volume of cheapskates, then face the fact that Apple would have to find some way to control piracy - hello activation and MGA, why the hell would one want to see crap white boxes running Mac OS X?
I also like having a computer that just works(tm).
I bought the MacBook, took it home, unpacked it, plugged it in, and it worked out of the box.
I ordered the uptodate dvd of Leopard, did a clean install, again, worked out of the box no problems. Everything supported - as it should be.
Why the hell would I want to give up something like that in favour of the Windows/PC world of 'find the driver'. Spending hours looking for drivers, work arounds, hacks, and updates to get things working to an acceptable level.
Nope, more sales of games on OSX would attract more game developers. They're currently put off by the low rewards (i.e. low sales against the cost of porting their game).
Considering that recent macs can all run windows, gamers would continue using windows.
I guess you could say a lot of people would be attracted to the platform. But for gamers, most of the things they run are games, and they're going to want to do that in windows. The few times they might boot into osx for something wouldn't justify the price of OSX.
Yes, this bit would be good for apple.
More likely they'd just buy a PC, which is what they use at work and is what they're used to. Unless of course they have somebody tech savvy to ask for advice.
If you could find drivers. This is where the whole thing really falls down. For OSX to actually run on any PC, you need drivers for each and every bit of hardware. You could put the latest kick ass video card in, but it wouldn't work until the manufacturer made OSX drivers, which would probably take a while if they bothered at all.
Considering the low market share of OSX, most would either not bother or would just make a token effort (which is worse, as you'd probably be left with a buggy product that never gets any updates!)
Linux manages this purely because a high proportion of linux users are developers, some of who will buy new hardware and write a driver for it themselves. That isn't common on the mac. There's still a LOT of hardware out there that linux doesn't support - on OSX it would be a lot worse. That would give OSX a bad reputation straight away.
That and the lack of facts coupled with wild speculation. Sorry, but its true. It is fun to speculate, but...
i voted no.. because quite frankly i would hate it. apple would eventually turn into windows because there is too much to keep up with, too much hardware to support.. and we all know what happens then.
What is the purpose of a business?
To serve the interests of the equity holders.
So unless Apple stock is all suddenly purchased by people who want to see their investment destroyed, there is zero danger of Apple releasing OS X for non-Apple hardware.
It is 100% downside for Apple. 0% upside. All risk. No reward. Nothing to gain. Everything to lose.
Every time someone can't afford the particular Mac they have their eye on, they spec out some components on NewEgg and come up with the bright idea "Hey, if Apple would just release OS X for non-Mac hardware, I could save $500! So it must be a good idea for Apple... wouldn't they like to be the company that saves me $500? And I'll even increase their revenue by $100 by buying a copy of OS X, as long as I get student pricing and can use it on unlimited machines. So that $100 has to be good, right, even if it means they are losing $250 in gross profit on the sale of a machine? And if me and all the guys on FANpowerGAMEBurd all do they same thing... that's like $1000!!!".
To serve the interests of the equity holders.
So unless Apple stock is all suddenly purchased by people who want to see their investment destroyed, there is zero danger of Apple releasing OS X for non-Apple hardware.
It is 100% downside for Apple. 0% upside. All risk. No reward. Nothing to gain. Everything to lose.
Every time someone can't afford the particular Mac they have their eye on, they spec out some components on NewEgg and come up with the bright idea "Hey, if Apple would just release OS X for non-Mac hardware, I could save $500! So it must be a good idea for Apple... wouldn't they like to be the company that saves me $500? And I'll even increase their revenue by $100 by buying a copy of OS X, as long as I get student pricing and can use it on unlimited machines. So that $100 has to be good, right, even if it means they are losing $250 in gross profit on the sale of a machine? And if me and all the guys on FANpowerGAMEBurd all do they same thing... that's like $1000!!!".
It will never happen because by and large Mac == elitist snobs. People are snobs because they somehow think they are special by running OS X on this beautiful system. Allowing OS X on other platforms is about the equivalent of allowing the bum on the street corner into a rich, yuppie, golf course clubhouse. Never mind that Apple would make a metric crap ton of money on such an endeavor. Hell they can even be picky with who they license the software too. Example. The Mac mini. Its retarded not to let someone else take over manufacturing of this hardware. Dell could easily do this and please dont bitch to me about hardware quality. There are checks and balances Apple can put in place to make sure whatever someone else is putting out is solid.
Personally Im mulling over not purchasing a new Mac Laptop when the time comes. My MBP has been good. But for the 2.7 grand I spent on it, it should have been better. Example. The use of the smaller form factor Express Card slot has made it virtually useless for anything other then a 3rd party remote control storage space. Using USB and a bus to link iSight, WIFI, BT to the system has caused multiple issues when trying to use Windows on this thing. The video card is anemic at best. Processor is solid, as is RAM size support. Zero support for upgrading your hard drive without having to remove the palmrest which I did. (Well ignore the fact that Windows PC laptops have had this since inception.) And just a general lack of being able to upgrade anything other then RAM has made me seriously consider a Voodoo PC for the next go around. Im still at least 2 years away from upgrading. Hopefully by that time there will be a definitive winner in the next gen optical format along with OLED displays, hybrid high cap SSS coupled with traditional disks, and quadcore laptop computing will be in full swing.
Those are some very pretty catch phrases. Now back to reality. The simple fact is that that Apple has a major barrier to entry for their OS. Other then their Mac Mini none of Apples computers are under a grand; and that that is WITHOUT Apple care that traditionally adds anywhere from $150-$300 onto the price. The argument is that Apple makes more money on their hardware then a single, or multiple sales of a $100 OS. The one thing that people seem to be forgetting is that there is a metric crap ton of people out there ready to buy OS X. I am NOT convinced that there arent enough sales to recoup the loss of any potential hardware sales. Absolutely NO ONE can say definitively as to how much Apple would make, but it would be a lot.
My big issue with Apple releasing OS X for the unwashed masses is momentum. Make no mistake we are taking about migrating Apple from more of a hardware company to more of a software company like Microsoft. Microsofts biggest problem since Windows 2000 and Windows XP has been users who are perfectly happy with the OS and see no need to upgrade. I still know more then my fair share of users on Win2KPro. If Apple releases OS X for everyone you are NOT going to have a mass upgrade that Apple enjoys when they release an update every few years. PC users are MUCH more pickier about upgrading OSs. Remember that many Windows users have the mindset that its good enough. IF it kinda works they arent going to go out of their way to replace or upgrade an OS. So down the road after Apple has made a metric crap ton of cash on selling OS X to lets say 80% of Windows users there will be a drastic drop in sales, at which point Apple is in the same boat as MS and would probably resort to product activation to try and scrap a few additional sales from the bottom of the barrel.
Then we havent even talked about hardware support. Dear god that alone is a 4 page post right there.
Its a slippery slope. I dont agree that keeping OS X tied to Apple hardware is the right solution but I also dont think dropping it into the market and having a feeding frenzy of buyers gobble it up is the answer either. I really am in favor of bringing back licensing the OS to OEMs. But the key would be two fold. Hand them the cheap hardware. The Mac Minis, the xMac, etc, and also some big time QC provided by Apple. Something that Apple has SERIOUSLY been lacking the last 9 years or so. Apple would need to put in place checks and balances to make sure that whatever hardware that is being put out by brand X is not some cheap pile o junk. That way Apple would still make money on licensing sales, but also give users a potentially cheaper option. Heck we all know that the Mac Mini isnt making Apple nearly as much money as the higher end Macs. There is no reason to not let someone else take over the lower end market.
Personally Im mulling over not purchasing a new Mac Laptop when the time comes. My MBP has been good. But for the 2.7 grand I spent on it, it should have been better. Example. The use of the smaller form factor Express Card slot has made it virtually useless for anything other then a 3rd party remote control storage space. Using USB and a bus to link iSight, WIFI, BT to the system has caused multiple issues when trying to use Windows on this thing. The video card is anemic at best. Processor is solid, as is RAM size support. Zero support for upgrading your hard drive without having to remove the palmrest which I did. (Well ignore the fact that Windows PC laptops have had this since inception.) And just a general lack of being able to upgrade anything other then RAM has made me seriously consider a Voodoo PC for the next go around. Im still at least 2 years away from upgrading. Hopefully by that time there will be a definitive winner in the next gen optical format along with OLED displays, hybrid high cap SSS coupled with traditional disks, and quadcore laptop computing will be in full swing.
Those are some very pretty catch phrases. Now back to reality. The simple fact is that that Apple has a major barrier to entry for their OS. Other then their Mac Mini none of Apples computers are under a grand; and that that is WITHOUT Apple care that traditionally adds anywhere from $150-$300 onto the price. The argument is that Apple makes more money on their hardware then a single, or multiple sales of a $100 OS. The one thing that people seem to be forgetting is that there is a metric crap ton of people out there ready to buy OS X. I am NOT convinced that there arent enough sales to recoup the loss of any potential hardware sales. Absolutely NO ONE can say definitively as to how much Apple would make, but it would be a lot.
My big issue with Apple releasing OS X for the unwashed masses is momentum. Make no mistake we are taking about migrating Apple from more of a hardware company to more of a software company like Microsoft. Microsofts biggest problem since Windows 2000 and Windows XP has been users who are perfectly happy with the OS and see no need to upgrade. I still know more then my fair share of users on Win2KPro. If Apple releases OS X for everyone you are NOT going to have a mass upgrade that Apple enjoys when they release an update every few years. PC users are MUCH more pickier about upgrading OSs. Remember that many Windows users have the mindset that its good enough. IF it kinda works they arent going to go out of their way to replace or upgrade an OS. So down the road after Apple has made a metric crap ton of cash on selling OS X to lets say 80% of Windows users there will be a drastic drop in sales, at which point Apple is in the same boat as MS and would probably resort to product activation to try and scrap a few additional sales from the bottom of the barrel.
Then we havent even talked about hardware support. Dear god that alone is a 4 page post right there.
Its a slippery slope. I dont agree that keeping OS X tied to Apple hardware is the right solution but I also dont think dropping it into the market and having a feeding frenzy of buyers gobble it up is the answer either. I really am in favor of bringing back licensing the OS to OEMs. But the key would be two fold. Hand them the cheap hardware. The Mac Minis, the xMac, etc, and also some big time QC provided by Apple. Something that Apple has SERIOUSLY been lacking the last 9 years or so. Apple would need to put in place checks and balances to make sure that whatever hardware that is being put out by brand X is not some cheap pile o junk. That way Apple would still make money on licensing sales, but also give users a potentially cheaper option. Heck we all know that the Mac Mini isnt making Apple nearly as much money as the higher end Macs. There is no reason to not let someone else take over the lower end market.
1)more game developers would be attracted to the platform
2)more gamers would be attracted to the platform
3)some tech savvy users in general would probably install os x on their comps increasing the user base even more
4)non tech savvy users wouldnt bother w/ such an installation so they would just buy a mac
5)i would be able to build a kick ass comp w/o windoze and linux
I can't see why any of these points would be any more true if Apple said it's ok than they already are today.
If Apple can't put together a machine with a "gamers" video card, what makes you think enough "tech savvy users" could do it to make a difference to the game developers?