MacDailyNews - Where Mac news comes first

NOOOOO LET THEM SUFFER!

Apr 03, 08 - 11:06 am Comment from: Cubert

No. Next question.

It would be a compatibility nightmare and would cheapen their brand. It will NEVER happen.

21% baby and going up!

It has always been my belief that Apple is going to wait until they reach a threshold - maybe it happens 3-5 years from now - where they can't squeeze out any more market-share. At this point the Fed might be looking their way, and then they'll license it to HP and Sony.

Apr 03, 08 - 11:11 am Comment from: Cubert

Stan Beer - the best name in IT!

This is a moronic article. Now that Apple can deliver competitively priced hardware, why should they offer Mac OS X to run on a PC ? (a) They lose the margin on the hardware sales, and (b) risk compatibiity issues.
Far better to continue as is.

Mac would become Windows, if you could buy OSX off the shelf and try to install it on your $300 Wal-Fart Dull laptop.

Same crappy driver issues that Windoze has...

Apple will never do it. Thankfully so....

Apr 03, 08 - 11:14 am Comment from: rahrens

All well and good but for one fact:

They tried it once before and it almost took Apple under! Instead of shooting for the cheap end, like Apple figured they would, third party manufacturers went straight for the jugular and Apple's primary market!

Steve will never allow that to happen again. Their greatest strength is control of the whole widget, and Steve will not relinquish that control.

Apr 03, 08 - 11:15 am Comment from: Macromancer

Not gonna happen. I wish people would stop this. The answer was no 5 years ago, 2 years ago, 8 months ago, 5 minutes ago, and will be no again and as long as Apple is a hardware company that wants to create an entire user experience.

So, no.

Apr 03, 08 - 11:16 am Comment from: Macromancer

"At this point the Fed might be looking their way, .."

Please explain how this will happen with only 10-15% market share, or even 50% market share.

Apr 03, 08 - 11:19 am Comment from: Cubert

MDN,
Very interesting idea!

I like. It would be the best way for them to do it. But, you would have to somehow prevent people from buying and installing the new OS, which people would figure out how to do REAL quick.

Apr 03, 08 - 11:20 am Comment from: mr_matalino

I guess Beer hasn't see this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DAht5n6cTMg

I don't think Apple will be doing any such thing...

Give them Panther, but not Tiger.
Apple makes its income on Macs, iPods, and iPhones, which are all hardware.
Apple is a complete hardware/software experience and THAT will not change. OS X on a Dell is like the Queen having to scrub my toilet
with a used toothbrush.
Apple is only about user experience.B

Apr 03, 08 - 11:26 am Comment from: Jubei

No, that would be the dumbest move ever! Apple makes a ton of money in hardware. I would rather spend the extra dollars for not having a substandard design, crappy fit and finish, stickerless products, random lights and buttons, doohickies everywhee and random lines of plastic molds.

I've advocated offering OS X for generic PCs for quite some time, although not at the same price. NeXT used to charge $800 per seat for NeXTSTEP on Intel, and Apple could charge whatever their gross margin is for a middle-of-the-line Mac.

What that would do, is break another barrier for business users, who often can't buy a machine that they want because of a company-wide purchase agreement that says they get all their desktop machines from HP or Dell, but who do have the authority to spend a grand on a software package.

Selling OS X for the same price for Macs and other makers' machines would be suicidal. Selling OS X at a considerable premium to the users I just described could be a big win for Apple.

-jcr

Apr 03, 08 - 11:30 am Comment from: JAYGEE

It would be good to see OS X on a Sony Vaio or a Toshiba. The hardware would have to be customized with a command button etc.

If I could have got OS X on a Toshiba, I would have probably got one of them, instead of OS X.

Not 10.5.2 ! Apple needs to first fix 5.2. Too many problems with it. 5.1 actually worked better then 5.2. Guess I need to go back to Tiger until Apple gets Leopard straightened out.

For the internet-capable, people can already run OSX on PCs...it's called OSX86 Project. Works just fine on ThinkPads.

But to the larger question of why, it's counter-intuitive for a company with a vertical monopoly business model to license a basic component of that model to other companies. Apple is doing just fine by keeping it all in house.

I can't believe I am going to say this.

But YES.

One version back only.

Tiger for PC.

Only one distributor and they pay a nice fee to Apple too.

People. Think outside the box a bit. The clones killed apple because they were a similar product to what they were already selling.

OTOH, if apple were to incorporate Touch into all their machines then there would be an opportunity to jettison Leopard (non-touch) to the OEMs and retain Leopard Touch for their own hardware.

Now that would be a slam dunk.

Apr 03, 08 - 11:36 am Comment from: LinuxGuyAndMacProdigalSon

What a stupid idea! The hydrogen bomb Apple would be dropping would be on itself.

Apr 03, 08 - 11:37 am Comment from: JAYGEE

Also, when will Apple release the iPhone OS to other phone companies? Hello Moto!

NEVER going to happen.

I don't think it would happen and it would not change my purchases anyway. My MacBook Pro is the best laptop I have ever had. I can run just about anything I need to run thanks to [virtualization]. I can understand why some people need a cheap desktop or laptop, but at that point why not just run Linux (can't really run Vista very well on a cheap laptop)? Linux is a nice low powered system. I use both Mac on the high end, Linux on the low. Windows only when forced to.

Once the Court will ask Apple to do something about it's monopoly situation of having 85% of computer market, it might be possible that Apple sells a licence of a really BASIC OSX HOME EDITION to one of the last survivor of PC manufactures... But the case will, before it, be cautionly studied by Apple's lawers...

Never!!!!!

Why should the people who build computers themselves, suffer????!!!!

steve jack is MDN. and only him. end the charade. it's getting old. otherwise keep up the good work.

Apr 03, 08 - 11:49 am Comment from: HotinPlaya

I do not think it will happen, but I see one scenario that could be good for Apple

License a series of Sony computers,(not across the whole line) with Apple having input into what goes into them to assure compatibility, and the user experience OS X gives

In return Sony introduces a line of HDTV's with built in Apple TV

I believe if a major brand offered Apple TV as an option, Apple TV would become the standard for internet TV, and no longer a hobby!

Apple is not a charitable organization that donates money to struggling hardware manufacturers. Since the profit is in the hardware, not the software, that's what licensing OS X would accomplish.

There is nothing stopping the other hardware manufacturers from imitating Apple's vertical integration. They can create subsidiaries that sell boxes integrated with custom versions of Linux for specifically targeted markets. In other words, they can add apples to the orchard. That would be bad news for Microsoft, though. <sniff>

Lather, Rinse & Repeat after me—Apple makes the BIG bucks on hardware, Apple makes the BIG bucks on hardware, Apple makes the BIG bucks on hardware, Apple makes the BIG bucks on hardware,

Apr 03, 08 - 12:01 pm Comment from: jocknerd

I'm all for it. Why? Because I just had to purchase a new machine because I have a $500 Apple Developer discount I needed to use by the middle of April. My two choices were a 15" MacBook Pro to replace my two year old MacBook Pro or a Mac Pro to replace my 4 year old PowerMac G5. I really need to replace the PowerMac but I couldn't justify the $3000 price tag. So I settled on a new MacBook Pro. Seriously, why can't Apple come out with a $1500 desktop? And I don't mean an iMac. If they won't do it, at least give me the option to run OS X on someone else's hardware.

Apr 03, 08 - 12:01 pm Comment from: Mac-nugget

Why?
No, really, why?

Apr 03, 08 - 12:07 pm Comment from: Mac-nugget

@jocknerd
You could have picked up a single processor MacPro that would reduce your cost to $2300. It runs circles around your G5, even with only one quad processor.

Apr 03, 08 - 12:08 pm Comment from: Big Al

Why doesn't Apple license OS X for computers, phones, music players, set top boxes, kiosks, cash registers and cameras?

Why should Apple be prosperous while other hardware manufacturers are losing their shirts using Microsoft's poor excuses for operating systems?

Why indeed. You want a decent OS buy an Apple product or fight with Linux.

No, no, and hell no.
Did anyone happen to see Apple's latest ad about controlling the BOX and the SOFTWARE?
Jeepers, no...

MDW secret word again as in "not again!"

I still believe in an OS NexT, based on OS X Tiger, for the PC, or just HP PC's. ..

Apple would be making a HUGE mistake putting osx on the PC. The reason being, with no mid range mac, many if not all people waiting for one would either pick up a dell or something like that just to have the osx operating system. Since apple won't give us a mid range alternative a pc maker could make one and take a ton of sales away from apple

Apple is already gaining >20% market share in the US. Why bother licensing to the Dell's of the world why what you are doing is working well.

Most of the computers, especially notebooks, seem to be manufactured by a handful of non branded factories via contract in China. So in effect, Apple is licensing it's software to run on boxes made by Hoofluingpoo Inc already, they just happen to design the box and specify specs.

I do think the day will come, but not anytime soon. With big marketshare gains as it is, why? Maybe get the Mac Mini down in the $399 range, but why anything else? I do think they could sell a lot of minis with say a DP 1.6 and integrated graphics to business, and still not injure iMac sales.

Apr 03, 08 - 12:25 pm Comment from: TowerTone

Apple doesn't need to license OS X to make money.
They can make it this way;

http://www.alleyinsider.com/2008/4/south_park_teachs_us_about_the_internet_economy_goog_

Definitely NOT!!!!!!! Buy a Mac!

Maybe a year ago, I MIGHT have agreed to Panther or something, but not now!

re:"Why should the people who build computers themselves, suffer????!!!!"

Why not. First, you don't build computers, you assemble generic parts. You guys are like kit car builders, It's possible to build a great one, but it rarely happens.

Because their money comes from hardware, the only way Apple could do this and remain profitable would be to sell OS X at a premium.. say about $400 - $500 per license.

Apr 03, 08 - 12:49 pm Comment from: 84 Mac Guy

Putting OS X in a Windows box is like putting a Victoria Secrets model in an old banged up Pinto. If you want the supermodel, you better get the BMW.

"People. Think outside the box a bit. The clones killed apple because they were a similar product to what they were already selling. "

No.

The cloner were making better Apple products and at a lower cost, and devoted Apple users were falling over themselves to get them. At the time of the Mac clones, I was a MUG member and I knew a lot of members who did just that. I almost did it myself.

Apr 03, 08 - 01:03 pm Comment from: treestman

Dumb thing for Apple to consider.

MS pulled it off by selling a billion licenses at high prices, and "forcing" users to pay for it with a new PC. If Leopard retails for only $129, what will the OEM's want to pay? Linux is free, and how many such PCs has Dell pushed out the door?

Further, the increased testing and support costs would be tremendous, and likely not be covered by the relatively small increase in revenue.

Finally, it would not be as stable, no matter how much they test it, so the damage to Apple's reputation is a big factor to be considered as well.

Apr 03, 08 - 01:09 pm Comment from: aaplsaur

I would hate to see Apple getting a bad rap for all of the drivers and chipsets that wouldn't work with OS X on a PC. Nor do I think it makes sense for Apple to be saddled with the responsibility of writing drivers for every peripheral out there (such as video cards) that only work with Windows. Forget the PC boxes. Keep it in house to insure quality. Open standards, closed system.

@ G Spank

Who cares if Apples market share gets so large that the Fed starts looking? Even if they were a total monopoly, no law is broken if they do not abuse their monopoly power as Microsoft has.

As a professional system builder, I would love to see Apple build some barebones motherboards for engineering applications. Give me a Mac Pro board with integrated graphics and more PCI slots and I can build some nice rack mount data systems that use the more reliable Leopard.

Apr 03, 08 - 01:27 pm Comment from: MCCFR

Not wishing to be a killjoy, but MDN really should give credit for its ideas to the people who really thought of them.

The 'OS X -1' idea is actually from a post I put up during one of these discussions several years ago around the time Apple announced the switch to Intel, whilst MDN (presumably SteveJack) was still going through its 'cloning is the end of civilisation as we know it' phase.

However, ignoring the plagiarism of ideas, I - and my business partner/closest friend who shares the credit - still hold this idea as being the cleverest way of increasing Mac OS X market share in markets where it isn't strong like enterprise or developing economies like India and PRC so long as it's coupled with a strong, tightly-enforced family of hardware reference platforms.

In an instant, the whole 'sole supplier' argument used against Macs in the enterprise would disappear and - given that Tiger is still a better OS than Vista - both private consumers and corporate users would still be better off than they will be in six months when XP is a memory and they're forced to use Vista with its three minute boot time.

There should also be no quantifiable cannibalisation: as I said back in 2005 (or whenever it was), people who want the latest, greatest Macintosh experience will still be forced to buy 'proper' Macintosh units as opposed to OEM systems.

In our opinion, this would easily add another level of growth to the Macintosh user-base - perhaps as many as 30-40 million units per year - which would give developers another 150 million customers at which to aim within five years, by which time they'd be using the version of OS X that comes after Leopard.

Apr 03, 08 - 01:28 pm Comment from: shen

"should ANALists keep asking the same dumb ass question about OS X?"

looks like they are going to anyway.....

"Who cares if Apples market share gets so large that the Fed starts looking? Even if they were a total monopoly, no law is broken if they do not abuse their monopoly power as Microsoft has."

uhm.... whatever

Apr 03, 08 - 02:03 pm Comment from: ElderNorm

Hmmmm??? Interesting all around.

But I did really like one idea. Apple might consider an OS that is Apple like and better than Vista. But not that complex. Something for the simple e-mail, iTunes, web surfing crowd but not something that is at the level of OSX 1 or below.

The OS would be licenced to PC makers on the cheap and would work with most older systems cause its cpu demand would not be super high. Sort of an OSX lite but not just a scaled down version, new software.

If its doable then Apple could give the pc makers and simple users a choice from MS Hell. But it would not be Apple and it would give MS even more headaches.

Just a thought. devilish at that.

en