Will Mac sell an OS to compete with windows

[Erasmus]

I think this would hurt Apple even more, if I buy a Dell and put a OS X on it and lets say my video card does not work right and it skips a little, if I have never used a Mac how am I supposed to know that Apple hardware will be any better?

Well, I am assuming that with enabling OSX to run on BIOS based PCs that Apple either writes drivers for extra stuff (unlikely), helps others write drivers for OSX (more likely), or somehow makes either a mini-Parallels program just for drivers, or a conversion tool to turn Windows drivers for 3rd party hardware into drivers for "Open-OSX".

It wouldn't be as stable as OSX is now, but it would be more stable than Windows. And of course it would be Mac OSX.

 

[Cult Follower]

I think they like their current tactics, and will continue selling osx soley on macs.

 

[Erasmus]

I think they like their current tactics, and will continue selling osx soley on macs.

I agree, but it's interesting to think about.

At them moment, Macs can run more software than any other computer. Let's keep it that way, eh?

 

[yg17]

I don't think Apple should sell a fully featured OS for PCs, it would kill off hardware sales.

What they should do is offer a free, downloadable trial of OSX that runs on any PC. Make it only run for X days, and bastardize it so its not completely usable as a permanent OS (so people don't crack or reinstall) but leave enough in there to show off OSX's features and convince people to switch.

Of course, so people don't have to partition and mess with boot loaders, perhaps make it run in a virtualized environment. I also remember back in the day BeOS, which was installed within Windows and then when you launched a program in Windows, it would reboot your machine and into BeOS, and another reboot would bring you back to Windows. That would work too

 

[SteveG4Cube]

What they should do is offer a free, downloadable trial of OSX that runs on any PC. Make it only run for X days, and bastardize it so its not completely usable as a permanent OS (so people don't crack or reinstall) but leave enough in there to show off OSX's features and convince people to switch.

Better yet, make an online virtual desktop of OSX like M$ did with Vista (can't find the link, not sure if it's still on their site).

 

[2ndPath]

I think the only way Apple could do it is to as I said before, open up say 10.2 for anyone, and sell it for say US$49. This should create an "OSX Halo Effect" convincing people to buy Macs to get the latest of Apple's OSes. Or, it could cause people to just be content with 10.2, and would kill both Apple, and seriously damage Microsoft.

This would be worse for Apple than offering the current version of OSX. First of all, the work to get 10.2 to run on a current PC hardware is probably much bigger than for 10.4, because 10.2 was only running under "lab"-conditions on Intel-chips. The second thing is, that Apple couldn't sell their other software to the people who bought this version of 10.2 because their other software often requires a newer version of the OS. So they would lose potential sales here. And selling software is part of their business as well.

Which might be even worse would be the fact that 3rd party software developers will accept the fact that there are a lot of people who can't upgrade. To not cut out these users, they will refrain from using the features provided by newer versions of the OS. The would reduce the incentive for Mac owners to upgrade to newer OS X versions.

So if they offer OS X for generic PCs or license it to selected PC manufacturers, offering the current version would likely be better.

 

[mklos]

I appreciate the responses though I still think Apple could make a fortune by selling say a two year old version of its OS for PC use in order to grab needed marketshare. Maybe even a cleaned up 10.1

You make absolutely no sense in saying that.....

First of all, why the hell would Apple release an OS to the rest of the world that doesn't work with nearly any software/hardware released for OS X today? It doesn't have nearly any of the features of the current OS. People will buy it, and figure out that they can't do what they expected to do, which is what current Mac users do. So they'll say its crap and go back to Windows. I don't think its Apple's motive to get Windows users to switch by re-releasing a 5 yr old OS to them. Business 101 says thats a very stupid idea and would only give Apple a big black eye. Thats like Microsoft developing Windows 98SE for Mac users to use natively on their PPC/Intel Macs instead of making Vista work bug free with it. Makes, no sense!!! All you're going to do by making a lesser OS X version is make software/hardware developers spend MORE money on the OS X platform to make their apps compatible with this lesser PC version of OS X.

Second, why do we all love OS X? Why? Is it because it looks pretty, ummm probably not! Is it because it because its more compatible with Windows, umm maybe, but were still not there! Is it because the damn OS just works, BINGO! Now why does it "just work"? Is it because Apple makes damn good hardware, ummm no! Yes, they do make damn good hardware but thats not really what makes OS X what it is. What makes OS X what it is today is the fact that Apple controls what hardware its installed into. If it were developed to be installed into any PC, it would have compatibility problems just like Windows does, though not as severe. It would have more problems developing major updates (dot releases ie. OS X.5) as it would have to make sure it works with the rest of the world's hardware.

Third, how is Apple going to keep updating the OS for Windows users if they were to do so? Are they just going to keep adding little tiny features every 12 months and 3 yrs from now Exposé FINALLY makes it into the PC version of OS X? Is that any way to treat a customer and potientially make them switch to a full blown Mac? Heck no!

I still don't see why people are complaining about OS X apps. There are thousands and thouands of OS X apps out there. Just because you can't go to Wal-Mart and get it, doesn't mean they aren't out there. Is this Apple's fault, yes and no, but its mainly up to the people who develop the software to market it, not Apple. Its not Apple's job to market Scrabble, or Photoshop, its up to whoever made it. So if Macsoft does't want to sell Scrabble for Mac in Wal-Mart, its their loss. Also, every software developer who develops OS X software is making a profit. If they weren't then they would stop developing the software. Every company is business to make money and they aren't going to develop and sell something at a loss for very long, if at all. Obviously since more and more Mac apps are being released, developers are seeing the benefits of making OS X software.

Now, what should Apple do? They should just keep doing what they're doing. Maybe eventually they should lower prices a little if anything. But, they're gaining more and more people everyday. More and more software developers are joining the OS X bandwagon and the company is on its way up. You must remember that Apple is NOT A SOFTWARE COMPANY!!!! Also APPLE IS NOT A WHITEBOX COMPUTER COMPANY!!!! Its not what the Mac is all about and anyone who truly knows about Macs knows this. And the day Apple becomes a whitebox company is the death of their own company. They may start selling more copies of OS X, and/or more pieces of hardware, but a Mac will never be what its supposed to be ever again...

Apple's revenues and profits come from hardware NOT software! The iPod, Macintosh, and the coming iPhone are all hardware that bring in around 75+% of Apple's revenues and profits. So spending hundreds of millions of dollars in R&D for a lesser OS X version for PC users is only going to waste away Apple's cash reserves and just make software developers and end users hate Apple.

Bottom line.... If you want to use OS X, buy a Mac!

 

[Old Mac Geezer]

I have wondered this for years but I hope someone knows the answer why doesn't Mac release an OS to install on anyones home built PC? Mac OS X is nice looking and seems to me a better choice than Vista. I just don't see why they don't do this. Mac cries about only having a very small market but to me it seems to be their own fault, Seriously why have they not done this?

Will Mac sell an OS to compete with windows

It won't happen. Apple is a hardware company as well as a software company. If they released OS X that could be used on any cheap PC, they would would be out of business on the hardware end because nobody would have any reason to buy a Mac. Apple's business model forever has always been that the OS be closely integrated with the hardware and limiting configurations. If they had to support every piece of new and legacy hardware out there, OS X would become as bloated as Winblows.

 

[mklos]

I don't think Apple should sell a fully featured OS for PCs, it would kill off hardware sales.

What they should do is offer a free, downloadable trial of OSX that runs on any PC. Make it only run for X days, and bastardize it so its not completely usable as a permanent OS (so people don't crack or reinstall) but leave enough in there to show off OSX's features and convince people to switch.

Of course, so people don't have to partition and mess with boot loaders, perhaps make it run in a virtualized environment. I also remember back in the day BeOS, which was installed within Windows and then when you launched a program in Windows, it would reboot your machine and into BeOS, and another reboot would bring you back to Windows. That would work too

The problem with doing that is, some hacker will figure out how to crack it so it works all the time, not just only during the 30 days. You will still run into problems with software not working because it requires OS X.3 or great or whatever. Its just not going to work. Apple isn't going to spend the money and resources on people who don't want to buy current hardware and software.

The best thing that Apple ever did was switch to Intel chips. Then it gives people more choices than they've ever had on a Mac.

Here's an idea for people:

Make 1 or 2 standard model(s) of each Mac model. So make 1 standard Mac Mini and then give a bunch of choices. Give a choice of 1.83/2.0/2.16 GHz Core 2 Duo CPUs. Give a choice of 60, 80, 120 GB HDs, etc. Make an iMac with a 20" screen and x GHz CPU. Then give a choice of a 17", 20", or 24" screen (appropriately increasing or decreasing the price). Then for example, you could configure a 17" 2.33 GHz Intel C2D iMac with a 256MB Video Card in it a 250 GB SATA HD, and a Combo Drive if thats what the customer wants. You don't have to spend the extra $100 to get the SuperDrive just to get the faster CPU, or whatever if you don't want it. If you don't want Bluetooth, then you don't add it on and you save x amount of dollars. You could do this for every model, not just the MacPro and Xserve. There, now a customer has choices in what they want. The bad thing I see about this is it may make production costs go up as not every Mac model will be the same. Most every Mac will be a BTO, but Apple could sell a specific set of models in their stores and on the Apple Online Store just like they do with the Mac Pro. The people who just want a Mac and don't necessarily care what they want can get one of the standard models.

 

[IJ Reilly]

The answer to this question is actually a lot simpler than many make it out to be. Apple won't sell OSX for installation on generic PCs because they'd be creating competitors for their own products -- and that would be a very dumb business strategy.

And before anybody asks: no, Microsoft never had this problem.

 

[Mozze]

I think this would hurt Apple even more, if I buy a Dell and put a OS X on it and lets say my video card does not work right and it skips a little, if I have never used a Mac how am I supposed to know that Apple hardware will be any better?

That was the problem I was thinking of. but like minded people like myself like to build their own PC and install the OS we like. ( I just don't see the point in someone charging me a 1000 dollars in labor to do something I can do in ten minutes)

but I see all of these posts about selling OSX would break apples back if that is the case how did MS get so much money??? ( when MS released Windows UNIX was available and it had a solid GUI its not like MS was the only choice) if apples operating system is so much better why not give a list of approved hardware to solve any issues mentioned in the quote and let it go. Apple makes tons of cash nickel and dimeing you to death with the .Mac and other programs that are not included ( the only MS programs not included with windows is Office and the games the release) how many programs does mac make that it charges you extra for programs that people love. I honestly believe that apple would make a fortune on the OSX software so much so that that even gaming companies would start to write games for macs again.

 

[roland.g]

By not marketing their OS Apple has painted themself into a corner where new Macs must run windows. Its that simple. when you have 5% marketshare who wants to develope anything for your little tiny itsy bisty market, Look at Mac gaming,Video cards or Tv tuners for Mac and its pathetic. Apple is Silly for not selling their best product. Mac OSX is their best product in my view.

Maybe you have to look at the marketshare a little differently. Try TVs and cable/sat. A lot of MR people are more cutting edge and have widescreens, and digital cable or satellite with nice surround systems, etc. But a huge segment of the population doesn't. Maybe they've bought a widescreen low end tv but they still have basic or expanded cable or rabbit ears, but not satellite or digital. They might not have a widescreen. Lesser is the number that have higher end LCDs or plasmas. While this may not be the best analogy since people will go into crazy debt for their tv entertainment...

Mac marketshare makes sense though. 5% of the people care about the computer and their computing experience. The other 95% of the hordes and masses either don't care, are uneducated/misinformed, are too cheap, continue to use what they have been/etc etc. Not everyone buys nicer watches, clothes, entertainment equipment, cars, or other quality items who's names and manufacturers reputations are synonymous with quality, reliability, etc. Some people buy knockoffs at wal-mart, some people buy more name brand. It's economics. And it's lifestyle and income. Apple is the name brand. PCs, whether Dell, HP, etc, build your owns, are the knockoffs. The quality isn't quite the same, neither is the ride, the handling, or the included extras (albeit for a price).

Make 1 or 2 standard model(s) of each Mac model. So make 1 standard Mac Mini and then give a bunch of choices. Give a choice of 1.83/2.0/2.16 GHz Core 2 Duo CPUs. Give a choice of 60, 80, 120 GB HDs, etc. Make an iMac with a 20" screen and x GHz CPU. Then give a choice of a 17", 20", or 24" screen (appropriately increasing or decreasing the price). Then for example, you could configure a 17" 2.33 GHz Intel C2D iMac with a 256MB Video Card in it a 250 GB SATA HD, and a Combo Drive if thats what the customer wants. You don't have to spend the extra $100 to get the SuperDrive just to get the faster CPU, or whatever if you don't want it. If you don't want Bluetooth, then you don't add it on and you save x amount of dollars. You could do this for every model, not just the MacPro and Xserve. There, now a customer has choices in what they want. The bad thing I see about this is it may make production costs go up as not every Mac model will be the same. Most every Mac will be a BTO, but Apple could sell a specific set of models in their stores and on the Apple Online Store just like they do with the Mac Pro. The people who just want a Mac and don't necessarily care what they want can get one of the standard models.

It's amazing though how many people walk into their stores and buy stock configs. I'm sure they do their research to find out what those should be. A lot of MR people are more BTO oriented. But I just don't see that happening. They include BT & Wireless standard now because they are always leading in terms of what newer technology is available and making it standard. 802.11g and now n as an example.

 

[roland.g]

That was the problem I was thinking of. but like minded people like myself like to build their own PC and install the OS we like. ( I just don't see the point in someone charging me a 1000 dollars in labor to do something I can do in ten minutes).

What gets lost on so many people is that Apple doesn't charge $1000 in labor for building you the machine. They charge a good price for an above the bar experience in which you pay for good hardware, excellent design, innovative and cutting edge technology, all seamlessly integrated with an awesome and always evolving worry free OS loaded with a variety of applications that work together. People really don't get how great iLife is. For the average consumer, it's fantastic. They'll never fully experience all the bells and whistles it has. For the geek who wants more, maybe iPhoto or iMovie or whatever is somewhat limited, but it's a great start. If you want something more they now offer Aperture and have always been an industry leader with Final Cut. With Final Cut Express, an attractive suite including Sountrack and Livetype, the home tinkerer can take it up a step for a reasonable price. There is a reason that the entire print industry (magazine, newspaper, photography) and the video industry (tv, film, etc.) have always been Mac dominated, and Adobe is first and foremost an Apple Software Developer. Photoshop for the PC was an afterthought. Those people in those fields need their work to get done, quickly and right, and the software and power of the Mac platform has always been their bread and butter. The business world, which by the way is to a large degree what drives the marketshare into such a skew, is almost entirely PC. Why. It's cheap. Lots of offices with cheap boxes running Windows. Makes sense. Of course as things get more complicated, internet, networking, e-everything, Windows sucks and so IT professionals make bank fixing a constantly jerry-rigged duct-taped system together. And MS can't keep up. XP was a step up but overdue and Vista is just the next evolution of the nightmare. I feel sorry for any company that goes through the growing pains of upgrading and dealing with the issues that that can of worms brings along.

 

[tutubibi]

... Vista is just the next evolution of the nightmare...

Nicely said.

 

[johnmartin78]

Apple isn't a software company,they are a hardware company.And they make software primarily for their hardware.
Which brings me to a little pet pieve of mine,comparing Apples market share with Microsoft's is like comparing Micheal Jordan with Dan Marino.It's 2 different ball games.Apple = hardware...Microsoft = Software.Can we please stop comparing the two.

 

[mrgreen4242]

I appreciate the responses though I still think Apple could make a fortune by selling say a two year old version of its OS for PC use in order to grab needed marketshare. Maybe even a cleaned up 10.1

That would be a terrible idea. Using an old product like that would just hurt future Apple sales. It wouldn't compare well to Vista, so would make people just look away from other Apple products.

I don't agree that Apple should sell OSX separately, but I think it would be a good idea for them to license it out to another OEM, with some strict restrictions; such as final say one what hardware they ship, how much they can charge for it, what other software is installed on the machine, etc.

For example, they could let Dell sell a midrange tower that a lot of us want, but that doesn't fit into Apples current product line. Make them limit it to being roughly a headless iMac, so they don't canabalize Mac Pro sales to badly and also to keep a limited amount of hardware configurations out there. They would only be allowed to use chipsets iMac are shipping with, GPUs and CPU that are in one of the iMacs, etc.

There'd be a decent amount of options you could pick from that way... start with a 1.66ghz CD on a 965GM mobo w/ GMA950 GPU and start adding faster CPUs/C2Ds, the x1600 128/256mb models, the 7300GT, or the 7600GT, more RAM, bigger/multiple HDDs, faster/more optical drives, etc etc. That shouldn't decrease the stability of OSX, since it's all the same parts Apple is already using. People could "upgrade" things on their own and run the risk of using non-official drivers, etc, but that's not Apple's (or Dell's) problem.

Also only let them use cases that were approved by Apple. Something that is similar to Dell's normal case, but modified enough to know it's running OSX, but not anything that is stylish like a "real" Mac. Liek a White w/ gray accents Optiplex case.

Charge a decent amount for the OS, of which Apple gets 100% (Dell could charge, say, $800 for the hardware and Apple gets $200 for the OS sale, plus a little quarterly royalties payment from Dell).

This would be a good deal for everyone, I think. Apple would move into a new market of people who want headless midrange systems without any real risk. They'd get a pretty nice profit off a system/process that they've invested basically no cash into. There'd be more people "trying out OSX" which could lead to future sales. Dell would sell some hardware to a crowd that is willing to pay a little more for good stuff, which is a plus for them. They'd have a good opportunity to sell some extra LCDs, printers, speakers, etc as well.

 

[tutubibi]

Apple isn't a software company,they are a hardware company.And they make software primarily for their hardware.
Which brings me to a little pet pieve of mine,comparing Apples market share with Microsoft's is like comparing Micheal Jordan with Dan Marino.It's 2 different ball games.Apple = hardware...Microsoft = Software.Can we please stop comparing the two.

Apple makes a lot of software for a non-software company.

But I think it is more than OK to compare software offerings of Apple and Microsoft. They have different business models, but saying comparison between them does not make sense is like saying we should not compare PS3 and Wii because Sony is not gaming company.

 

[roland.g]

For example, they could let Dell sell a midrange tower that a lot of us want, but that doesn't fit into Apples current product line. Make them limit it to being roughly a headless iMac, so they don't canabalize Mac Pro sales to badly and also to keep a limited amount of hardware configurations out there. They would only be allowed to use chipsets iMac are shipping with, GPUs and CPU that are in one of the iMacs, etc.

Also only let them use cases that were approved by Apple. Something that is similar to Dell's normal case, but modified enough to know it's running OSX, but not anything that is stylish like a "real" Mac. Liek a White w/ gray accents Optiplex case.

As bad as I want a mid-range option, for a nano.second you had me re-thinking my initial reaction (I can still taste the vomit) to owning a Dell running OS X with the whole Apple approved case, but

NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO.

I will buy a Leopard loaded 24" iMac (hopefully in black or silver) if there is no mid-range Mac this spring before you ever ever ever ever ever I could type a few more ever ever ever got my to buy a Dell running OS X.

Don't get me wrong mrgreen as I respect your opinion, but I also think that opens up more problems than it's worth, not to mention, if they want to give people that option, they will do it themselves and make money off the hardware too.

On a side note. People are talking marketshare, Buildyourownboxes, different configs, don't make everyone have to pay for BT or SDs if they don't want it. Maybe it doesn't cover every one of these points, but Apple does want you to switch, but for who they are, they won't change their model to bring more people in who for some reason are trying to rationalize that there just isn't a Mac for them (their lineup is pretty complete). What would that say to the people loyal to the brand and everything it stands for if they cheapened it for marketshare. Oh wait I forgot, everyone wants the stuff to be as good but somehow more PC.

 

[KingofAwesome]

I think Apple would have no problem whatsoever getting MacOS X running on about any modern PC. However, your point (2) is absolutely right: I don't think the number of sales of MacOS X would grow too much, and for every two sales of MacOS X or even less Apple would lose one sale of a Macintosh. Most stupid move possible for Apple.

No problem whatsoever, eh?

I think you have too much faith in Apple's definitely existing history of developing drivers for every recently-made PC motherboard, to say nothing of the rest of the components present in modern PCs.

And Apple would need to convince consumers to spend another $130 on an operating system even though they already have Windows installed.

The segment of the market that buys PC's, pays for OS's (besides those bundled with the system), and wants to install Mac OS X on a PC is not exactly a big market with high margins.

 

[Skrilla™]

Apple isn't a software company,they are a hardware company.And they make software primarily for their hardware.
Which brings me to a little pet pieve of mine,comparing Apples market share with Microsoft's is like comparing Micheal Jordan with Dan Marino.It's 2 different ball games.Apple = hardware...Microsoft = Software.Can we please stop comparing the two.

couldn't agree more.

and the answer to the question is NO.

 

[KingofAwesome]

That was the problem I was thinking of. but like minded people like myself like to build their own PC and install the OS we like. ( I just don't see the point in someone charging me a 1000 dollars in labor to do something I can do in ten minutes)

What? You can pick out a very good, compatible set of components for a complete system and put them together in just ten minutes? And you can match the performance and general design quality for $1000 less than what Apple is charging?

That would be a 20" LCD screen (the high quality kind, remember), a C2D 2.16Ghz, 250GB SATA HD, 1GB RAM, some decent motherboard, a moderate video card with 128MB, DL DVD burner, wireless/ethernet card, bluetooth, microphone, speakers, keyboard, mouse, camera, case, fans, IR sensor, and power supply for $500.

And remember, when you buy an Apple machine you're paying for the R&D that went into picking out those components and designing a system to hold them all, not to mention the process to assemble them. That knowledge has a cost.

I know that we can build comparable systems from scratch for less than what Apple charges, but you don't need outrageous exaggerations to make a point. It completely ruins the point.

 

[mrgreen4242]

What? You can pick out a very good, compatible set of components for a complete system and put them together in just ten minutes? And you can match the performance and general design quality for $1000 less than what Apple is charging?

That would be a 20" LCD screen (the high quality kind, remember), a C2D 2.16Ghz, 250GB SATA HD, 1GB RAM, some decent motherboard, a moderate video card with 128MB, DL DVD burner, wireless/ethernet card, bluetooth, microphone, speakers, keyboard, mouse, camera, case, fans, IR sensor, and power supply for $500.

And remember, when you buy an Apple machine you're paying for the R&D that went into picking out those components and designing a system to hold them all, not to mention the process to assemble them. That knowledge has a cost.

I know that we can build comparable systems from scratch for less than what Apple charges, but you don't need outrageous exaggerations to make a point. It completely ruins the point.

Well, that's just the point. You're highlighting all the reasons I'd want to build my own Mac. I don't want a "high quality" (read expensive) 20" LCD. I want a 22" mid-range LCD. I don't want a midrange GPU. I want a high end own (depending on the day of the week I want a high end card or a low end one, that's just my schizophrenia, though). I have no use for BT, a webcam, or IR remote on my computer either.

I don't want a stylish case, I want a smallish case I can hide under my desk, and fans that are QUIET. I don't even want a Core2Duo, really. A dual core Pentium D would be just fine, thanks. I could build the machine that I want from Apple for something like $600. Add $300 for the LCD that makes me happy and it is $600 to $1100, depending on what you want to compare. (You could compare it to a mid-range iMac and call it fair, but you could also compare it to a Mac Pro, since that's the only way to get comparable configurability).

 

[princealfie]

As much as I love Macs and everything, I would love to have more options open on Apple hardware switching in and out. The Mac Pro is nice but way too pricey honestly. And the iMac has no PCI slots!

So it's back to the Powermac G3/G4 stuff or Hackintosh I guess?

 

[localoid]

As much as I love Macs and everything, I would love to have more options open on Apple hardware switching in and out. The Mac Pro is nice but way too pricey honestly. And the iMac has no PCI slots!

So it's back to the Powermac G3/G4 stuff or Hackintosh I guess?

The mini is pretty hackable in it's present design state in terms of CPU upgrades and even using a 3.5" SATA drive. The brick wall is the 3D-challenged onboard graphics, which isn't bad if you only need 2D-graphics. You warranty is void, but die-hard hackers probably don't care...

If the mini gets the Santa Rosa treatment, ending up with X3000 graphics onboard, it would be an even more desirable box for hacking. Another Firewire 400 port or the addition of Firewire 800 could open up more possibilities, as would an attached graphics "card" like the NVIDIA GeForce Go 7400 the Apple TV is rumored to be using. Much beyond that and it wouldn't fit in the tiny mini-sized box, tho'...

Never-the-less, the the reality is: if and when the mini might receive a design change is anyone's guess. Meanwhile, the mini's not bad if your work (or play) time doesn't require high-end 3D graphics.

 

[roland.g]

or the addition of Firewire 800

The Mini most certainly will not get Firewire 800.