MacDailyNews - Where Mac news comes first

Note to Dell and others: If you want to brand the stuff, become like Foxconn. You MAKE Apple's hardware for Apple, and share in the profits. That is the only way you are going to get in on it.

Apple's difference is its controlling the whole prcocess - OS and hardware. Allowing assemblers to build machines would eventually produce the quagmire that MicroSoft finds itself in..."thing just don't simply work" like they do on apple because drivers and such need to be tweaked etc.

Not to mention...why would apple license when they can simply sell to the same person that Dell want s to sell to but directly...therefore making the money on the OS and the hardware?

Apple's plan is coming together. Great products noww with a growing retail presence. They still maintiain the upscale brand but have successfully pierced the "price myth"...and now poor Michael Dell is beside himself wondering how he can win?

Licensing OS X is the worst thing Apple could ever do... Thank God, they won't!

Licensing the Mac OS in the nineties is what nearly drove Apple to the dirt. The first thing Steve Jobs did when he returned to Apple as CEO was to kill off the OEM vendors and vowed to never license the Mac OS again..

What people don't understand is that Apple is NOT a software company and they are NOT a hardware company, THEY ARE BOTH, a systems company if you will..

Mac/OSX, iPod/iTunes, complete end to end experience, they control the whole widget and that's why Apple products "just work."

To license OSX would be to kill the best thing Apple has going for it. There would be no more "just works" slogans. There would be driver, hardware and compatiblitiy issues galore, much like Dell and Microsoft face. Support costs would go through the roof. Etc.. etc... Apple would also be giving up the major advantage of selling the only computer systems in the world that are capable of running both OSX and Windows...

Licensing OSX would be an all around bad idea.

Apple is a hardware company. This has been explained to death.
If they licensed the OS it would destroy the company since they make
a comparitively low margin on the OS. Five licenses for $199?
Louderback just doesn't get it.

poor old dell

HAHAHAHAHA

my heart bleeds for em

I, for one, would never buy another Dell, even if it did run OS X 10.5.

Once a crap maker, always a crap maker.

Apple is a hardware company. This has been explained to death

----------------------------

As I explained in my above post, I disagree with this statement... Apple is a "systems" company, hardware and software combined.. That's what makes them so unique and is the very reason they have survived so long in the face of the 800lb gorilla known as Microsoft...

If Apple was just a hardware company, they would have been gone long ago. It's the complete end to end user experience of flawlessly combining hardware and software solutions that has made Apple what it is today..

The Mac without OSX would be nothing.. The iPod without iTunes would be just a fancy looking player..

Of course they do. They're shitting bricks right now about the tidal swell that is building and about the fact that they are Micropenis' little bitches.

This does pose an interesting question... would we all lose interest in Apple/OSX if it had a market share comparable to MS Windoze?

As a share holder in Apple, I'd love to see them license there OSX. I was just thinking about this as I flew thru 3 Airports on Monday - each gate agent at 3 different airports, in 3 different regions of the country, were using DELL boxes... I love to see Apple/OSX have that kinda presence one day.

Sell boxed copies but NOT license to PC makers.

This would mostly win over the DIYers, so it wouldn't cut into Apple hardware sales as much as full licensing would.

Then run promos where Mac hardware owners always get $30 off all OS X versions.

Louderback is a tool on top of being a spaz.

It's pointless to try and have other companies be hardware manufacturers for an Apple OS. The design constraints would be so tight, in order to ensure that the OS worked as well with their hardware as it does with Apple's that everyone would essentially be making the same box. What's the point?

People seem to be unable to grasp the idea of the whole widget.

You dont walk into a Ford dealership and ask to have a Toyota engine installed. Why does every part of the computer HAVE to be spearate.

The funniest thing about that article was at the end, they hired "Think Secret" to write a Apple Rumors article for them every other week. Just like PC's ... always behind a bit, ThinkSecret is no longer the king of rumor sites, they can't get anything right anymore, just like PCMag. LOL!!

Jim Louderback writes as if Apple is only in the OS business. He completely overlooks the fact that they make much more money with their computers.

Moreover, if Apple licenses OS X, then Macs will loose their advantage of being the only computers that can use all OS's. This advantage will be more apparent when the results for the September and the December quarters come out.

If "wishes" and "buts" were candy and nuts, then every day would be a Merry Christmas. Dell et al should be salivating for Vista rather than OS X. These guys hooked their wagons to Microsoft so they should just learn to deal with it.

As a share holder in Apple, I'd love to see them license there OSX

Why? Apple makes a hell of a lot more money selling a $1200 computer than they do selling a $129 software license.

And now that Macs can dual boot Windows, they have the ultimate advantage of being the only company capable of selling computers that can do this.. The marketshare will increase, it's a long slow process, but it's happening.

Licensing OSX would be the worst move Apple could make. That's why they aren't doing it.

Wasn't it Dell suggesting Apple close up shop, give the money back to the investors?

"I'd still run Vista on it—at least at first". So he'll pay for a sub-standard operating system so he can stop using it? I swear to god I walk amongst idiots.

Let's say Apple decided to license it's OS to Dell, Lenovo & H-P.

When you had a problem with your computer, tech support would be from them & not Apple. How quickly do you think that Apple's rep would be in decline?

To be truthful, half of the stability issues Windows has is because of the gazillion different combinations of components used out in the PC world. Apple has only a relatively short list of combinations to test for and it is still a big job. If Apple were to go down the licensing road, the complexity issue would cause stability and reliability to suffer.

A good rep is hard to get and takes time. It is very easy to lose. It's even harder to get back.

I cringe at the thought of OSX running on an ugly cheap ass $399 Dell with a Centrino processor and parallel ports on the back.

Apple's reputation for stabliity would go down the drain overnight.

OSX deserves hardware that is designed to run the operating system. Only Apple can do that.

Just look at the support and compatiblity issues that exist in the PC world. Do any of you really wish that upon Apple?

This guy does not get it.

Boil it down and he is saying "Be M$, just a better one."

This is NOT how Apple operates, or what Apple is. Apple sees the best way to deliver a top flight product is to develop the hardware and software in-house, together.

Who can argue this approach with the products and success they have had?

With the right leadership, this model works very well.

Would a limited licensing scheme work, with Mac clones built to Apple specs (like the hPod)? Or maybe Apple could start by licensing OS X Server?

Dell know their impending doom. They are trying to play with Apple by baiting them into the worst move ever.

Say it did happen. When Apple wanted to release a new version of the OS, they would need to give the OEMs a 6 month head start, and there would be no more consumer enthusiasm once OEMs are added to the picture.

People may eventually run Windows on Macs, but we all know that once you have them side by side on a machine, you will prefer to be in OS X to Windows. And THAT is what Apple is banking on. That and taking away Microsoft's only other product: Office. Somehow they need to do this, even if it means pre-installing OpenOffice on the OS, and keeping it up to date via Software Update.

Keep up the good fight, Apple. And stay loyal to the OS, brothers and sisters.

I don't know if it would be smart or not for Apple to license its operating system to other vendors. But lets not use the excuse that they tried it before and it nearly killed them. Those were different times. In the mid 90's, Apple licensed its OS to a few other hardware vendors. They were not mainstream vendors and the only people who were interested in Apple's OS back then were Apple users. No wonder the licensing of the OS nearly did Apple in. The sales were being taken from Apple.

I really believe it would be different this time. There were be a lot of sales to Windows users and Linux users. But I don't see it taking over corporate America.

Let the parasites whine. They offer no added value.

I think if Apple is strategic and only allows mayb eone PC vendor to license the Mac OS, it could do wonders for the comoany. FOr instance, let SONY license the OS and only allow SONY to sell certain, Apple specified, PCs with the Mac OS on it. That way Apple still remians in control of making sure the hardware works with the OS perfectly. Box makers like DELL will go down faster that way. And consumers would get a slick looking computer with the best OS around... that just works.

I agree that there is a huge value in having control over the entire system but sometimes Apple's limited hardware options exclude it from certain markets. If I need a notebook computer with a screen smaller than 13 inches, I'm SOL. If I want a tablet, SOL. These are small markets but they are markets that force people to use Windows, or occasionally Linux. Even with the advances into interoperabilty most people don't want to be dual platform. I think it's gotten easy to run both but most people just don't want to deal witht he hassle.

err um... you do all the work Apple, we do all the undercutting and the profit taking. Ya, until "Dull" and their ilk actually innovate beyond price-cutting then licensing is not an option.

I don't want Apple to spend thousands of man hours working on drivers for all in sundry to enjoy the pleasures of OS X.

The answer is simple, Macs are no more expensive than a good spec PC. So next time you buy a computer make sure its a Mac and then you can choose to run whatever operating system you want.

I don't get it? If there are people prepared to buy a Dell PC with OS X on it why don't those same people take their heads out of their arses and just buy a Mac from Apple instead?

If you are one of those turd filled eyed people go here:

http://store.apple.com/1-800-MY-APPLE/WebObjects/AppleStore.woa/6444002/wo/fcr3g9W4HwwH2qHdD1f1szIBQCc/3.?p=0

Licensing OS X is the only way Apple will overtake Microsoft in OS market share. It might also be a certain way to drop back out of the Top 5 PC manufacturers.

Were I making the decision, I'd do it ... sort of. Sure you can make Mac-compatibles - here's the book of restrictions and requirements (handing over an inch-thick 8"x10" volume). And the price is $129 per copy. In other words, making it nearly impossible to cheap-out my market.

Prediction:

Apple WILL allow Dell and others to preload OS X on their computers. I believe this will happen once Åpple's marketshare is over the 20% mark.

- Mark

Hmmmm, I think that some of this is good thought. The thing is VERY good computers are more than just a cheap box. Its how the parts work together, including the person that has to use them.

I read Louderback's article. He is clueless as a manufacturer. In fact it is people like him that are the reason that Apple has not gone into the wholesale OS business. "I like the way your computer works, can I put my crap hardware in it and run a crap OS on it and have it be just as good?" LOL Yep, misses the boat totally. LOL

However, I could see the day when Apple systems are sold by Dell, etc. But they would have to be Apple systems, software, etc for it to work. I also do not see Windows systems stopping for a long time. There are too many software specific systems out there for that to happen. But maybe some day.

N.

Suppose you were a car company and go so tired of the crappy tires from the tire company that you decided to design your own, but they only worked with your cars. But together your car and tires were fantastic and people wanted to buy your cars because they also loved the tires. Now all the other car companies are crying because you won't sell them your tires and it killing their business.

So along comes Louderback saying "boy your guys are a great tire company". You could destroy all the other tire companies is you sell your tires to all the other car companies.

What's wrong with this picture? Louderback has it all wrong. Apple is a HARDWARE company that makes great software, not the other way around. At least for now. Let them kill off a few car companies, and then commence on killing off the dreaded tire company.

Apple is a HARDWARE company that makes great software, not the other way around.

-------------------

Wrong Apple is not a hardware company and they are not a software company. They are a systems company.

Apple should license OS X, however the license should be very expensive and only work on high end hardware. Then we'd see if Mac's were expensive.

Supporting these vendors will cost money.

Is it worth the extra $50 per license considering that Apple will then face competition both at the high and low wnd of the market?

Licensing OSX adds zero value to Apple's bottom line.. Apple is already the most respected, most copied and has the highest brand loyalty of any computer maker around. Macs have become very price competitive and are the only computers around that can dual boot.

I am simply amazed at how many "Mac Fans" actually think that a license deal could be a possiblity as long as Jobs is in charge. Hasn't he made it clear by holding to his laurels for more than 30 years that the only way he is willing to do things is by selling a complete system? Now that Macs are gaining momentum, he is certainly not going to shift gears. He made an absolute vow that OEM vendors are wrong for Apple, and he would never go that route. Apple products are a complete experience, that's why we love em.. It's not going to change.

If a PC user is really interested in OSX, they are going to have to pony up the cash and buy a Mac, that's all there is to it.

OSX is the "soul of the Mac." Steve isn't gonna sell his soul... Especially to Dell.

You people make me puke!

On one hand you're all saying that you want to see Apple beat Microsoft into oblivion.

The only way they can do that is to be a software company and license OSX for QUALIFIED machines.

But you kool-aid drinkers squeal like pigs when someone suggests the obvious solution to beating M$.

Apple may - currently - be a hardware/software/systems company. BUT with the move to Intel processors and 10.5, it may be time for Apple to get off the fence. Being a hardware and software company and tying OSX to the box will ensure that Apple will remain a niche player in the computer market.

I guess that's what the Mac-fanatics really want...

Triplehead,

You make the mistake that Apple even intends to beat Microsoft.. If Apple really wanted to dominate the PC and OS market, they could easily drastically increase their market-share by selling low cost bargain bin machines, but they don't. Apple builds fully equipped quality systems, that's their schtick. They are not a budget manufacturer, Apple has a very specific target market.. Mid to high-end home and professional users. In that market, they are very cost competitive and they are growing. Licensing OSX is not going to help them achieve the markets they are after..

I've said this before, and I'll say it again.

Now that OS X is mature, give PC box assemblers the right to ship the N-1 release of OS X.

What?

When they start shipping Leopard, give manufacturers who conform to a pre-defined hardware reference platform the right to OEM package Tiger on those platforms.

If you want the latest, greatest (that would be the 5%) that can run the latest greatest iLife/Aperture/FCP: you buy Mac with an Apple logo. If you can't afford Apple's product quality, but want stability and security you buy Lenovo (powered by MacOS).

Corporates would be happy: they'd have a choice with which to beat MSFT and they could stick to their preferred suppliers and they'd be getting an OS which has had all the bugs ironed out. The Assemblers would be happy: they'd get access to a software development team that knows what its doing. And Apple would be happy as it gets to amortise development over a wider period and effectively gets an income stream for another few years. Developers are happy for all the same reasons.

It's an idea that's so beautiful, I really can't understand why anyone would have a problem.

Let Dell have OS 9.

Microsoft sells software. Dell and HP sell hardware. Apple sells appliances. That's why I bought my first Apple and every one since then. The constant din of hardware vs. software company nonsense is just silly. Why not license other OS's to run on the iPod? Or license the iPod OS to run on another MP3 player? No one is calling for this because its silly - unnecessary. Same here. The experience you have with a Mac is not just because of the hardware, or the software, but the combination of both. And because Apple controls both things actually WORK... Reliably.

Why I switched to a Mac (in 1994): I turn it on, I do my work (or play) and I turn it off. (now I just let it go to sleep).

Sure, Apple's better than Microsoft because it controls the "whole widget" as Steve would say.

But do you really think the world would be worse off if we could stare at that classy metal OS X on our PCs at work instead of that garish blue?

I think we all know Apple is better with programming than Microsoft, so there's no reason they couldn't make it work. Or maybe they could put it up to the vendors to create drivers.

One of the problems is that Apple always tries to push the envelope in terms of software and hardware. Look how few new computers have EFI, look how long it took PC's to abandon the old serial and parallel ports infavor of USB and Firewire. Look how few vendors even offer firewire 800. Why would Apple want to allow these companies to make less-than Macs? They send there specs to the manufactorers just like Apple does, so what would be the point of having a wannabe Mac with some other company's name on it?

I've said it before and I'll say it again.

Dell's interest in Mac OS X does not come from wanting Mac OS X. Dell's interest in Mac OS X is that they want a club to hit Microsoft in the head with.

Dell can strong-arm any of it's suppliers. "Give me this for $1 cheaper or I'll find someone else who will." With Dell's volume, they can do that. They can pit Intel against AMD, they can pit Micron against Hynix, they can pit Samsung against Toshiba, etc.

Everybody except Microsoft.

If Microsoft says, "Windows licenses are $100", that's what Dell has to pay. If Dell had an alternative, they could use it against Microsoft--"Hey, Apple's licenses are $90. Give us Windows for $75." It ends up being a race to the bottom ("Hey Apple, Microsoft's licenses are $75. We want Mac OS X for $50!") and the only winner is Dell.

HP did it with the iPod and you see what a difference it made? Most people still bought the genuine Apple iPod.

HP did it with the iPod and you see what a difference it made? Most people still bought the genuine Apple iPod.

-------------

All HP did was buy the right to put their name on the iPod in exchange for iTunes being the default jukebox on HP computers.. The hPod was manufactured by Apple, not HP.

But yes, you're right. Everyone wanted the Apple brand.. When you have a brand name as strong as Apple has become over the last few years, the last thing you want to do is dilute it.

Dell could easily switch to Linux. They could work with the Linspire folks and come up with a good alternative to Vista especially now that there are GPU powered window managers. Dell has the clout to totally transfer existing and future users to Linux if they wanted to. That would show the world that Dell is concerned enough with their customers to move them away from the cesspool of virus and spyware. Also if Dell was backing Linux, it would help to bring more consumer applications such as games to the *Nix world and would therefore be also helpful to Apple.

OSX is the "soul of the Mac." Steve isn't gonna sell his soul... Especially to Dell.

Amen