Do you realize the irony of using NeXT to support your argument? NeXT Step's attempt and failure to remain profitable as a software only business is precisely why Jobs will never do it.

You guys can wish it all you want but it is not going to happen.

If the macbooks are anything to go by, the Intel powered towers Apple releases will be price competitive with other "similarly configured" PCs even before factoring in the software and that it comes with a pro level OS.

If all this materializes, your arguments in favour of licensing will all but disappear especially if they come out with faster chips on the mac towers before everyone else and perform better under windows (from motherboard tweaks) than similarly configured PCs.

Apple can and should simply sell the OS at the OEM level to people who make Green Apple boxes(as against Intel white boxes). It is my understanding the OEMs pay around $85 for Win Xp, but it varies with volume, Dell pays less. Apple can sell at that price to OEMS and make lots

No need to licence them, just sell the OS and make a buck and seed the low end with apple users.
They will need to make a marriage of machine specs to OS price. So if people want to make $3000 Apple clones, they will pay more for the OS.

Apple sorely needs to get it's box share up. Currently it is about 1.3% as you count boxes and about 2.6% as you count dollars due to the higher price of Apples. Yes Apple inflates it's figures.

Then let low end buyers work up to better Apples or not. Apple will have it's OS sale $$ in it's hip pocket and margins on the OS are 95%....a lot more than hardware.

Will Jobs do it? Hard to say. Jobs is not very bright. The recent ipod success was preceded by many years of horrible marketing failure that took Apple from 100% share all the way to the present sorry state. Most of these monopolistic Apple practices that ruined Apple were done by Jobs, although Scully and others marketing genii kept t it after they booted Jobs.

So Jobs is a 1 trick cowboy, computers are still not that bright a star. Ipod hails the freight

I work as a developer and I can tell you that there is no way a company the size of Apple could survive on 85 dollars per copy. They would not be able to sell enough copies to pay for development costs and support costs.

Your figures do not add up. I'm sorry but you do not have any idea about the costs involved in development of software let alone an OS.

They should sell osx and here is why. They might lose some dough in lost mac sales but lets look at who makes software for osx. Apple makes all the video editing apps, they make ilife,iwork, and a host of other programs. They also would increase the number of machines running itunes and that will improve ipod sales. Apple also updates their os ever couple of years the updates are minor but they sell the new os for 150 bucks. Thats a lot of cake.

Just because apple contracts out the design and construction, doesn’t mean it's not their own.

Even the PPC Macs didn't use Apple components.

But most of the people interested in those applications would likley just buy a Mac.



See: iTunes for Windows.



The great majority of people who buy a PC never upgrade the OS. They used what came on the machine.

Apple stands to sacrifice its unheard of margins in PC sales if they license their OS. If other OEMs can sell OSX, it greatly reduces the perceived value of a Mac.

If Apple is able to grab a majority of the PC market then you might see it forced to license its OS, but until then, I doubt it will happen.

Let's look at History. Macs have been slowly becoming PCs and now Macs are PCs.

Apple used to use it's proprietary Video connector, then switched to VGA.

For awhile it was DVI, then switched to ADC and then back to DVI-D.

For a long time Macs used SCSI and PCs used ATA or IDE.

Since the 604e and G3's, Mac use ATA and ATAPI for HDs/DVDs.

And for the longest time, it was either a 680xx or a PowerPC chip and now we know what they use now.

The next step is obviously licensing the OS after it's hardware sales start to dry up, but I could not count on that until the OS that comes after Leopard.

Now is not the time because of SSE2/SSE3. Which Pentium III's do not have. As these old PCs are replaced with newer onces with both SSE3 and EFI, then Apple can consider licensing.

I would be willing to bet that PC Manufacturers will start "cloning" Apple's specs and release Tower's that are have simliar guts of an EFI Intel Mac.

However, Leopard may not even run on an ordinary PC. If no one is able to crack it, you could expect Apple to release the version or two after Leopard. Who know what Cat that will be. If Apple can make those virtually uncrackable then Apple will hold the key and decide whether the time is right for WORLD DOMINATION.

GT

The problem is, Apple did try allowing cloning in the past and it caused their hardware sales to dry up.

The amount Apple would need to charge for a license of the OS and firmware to make up for the loss in hardware sales wouldn't allow any cloners to be competitive, so no cloners would pick it up.

They wouldn't have to charge for use of their firmware, since they're now using EFI. It's not something propietary like OpenFirmware, and can most likely be easily tailored for use on Dell's and the like, If Apple so chose to. What they would be licensing, would be the OS software itself, most likely in the form of custome tailored OEM discs, much like current copies of windows.

Just my 0.02

Apple does have custom EFI modules (and are expected to add more) that they would likely charge a licence fee for -- if they ever did licence the OS.

That's true, they do have custom EFI modules. But continuing along with the whole OEM OS X idea, if they were to license out the EFI modules along with the OS, you would most likely end up the same fiasco as the first time around. Instead, I could see them simply using some sort of standard motherboard EFI implementation. Doing so would prevent clones from simply using the same EFI dependant hardware as real Mac's, but still enable users to experience OS X.

Valid point, though.

Most likely minus any virtualization (it's rumored that this will be done through an EFI module), etc.

The problem I see is that this would still likely reduced the perceived value of a Mac, fragment the market, and dramatically reduce Apple's hardware sales. I highly doubt, at this time anyway, they’d be able to move licenses for OSX at a high enough volume to offset the loss in hardware sales.