thrunner Posted April 5, 2006 Share Posted April 5, 2006 Now Boot Camp is released, why not release OSX to generic PCs? http://forum.osx86project.org/index.php?showtopic=14061&hl= There is clearly no technical reason why OSX couldn't run on your average generic PC as evidenced in this forum and others. The only reason is that Apple is protecting it's monopoly on the hardware and software sides of it's business. The advent today of introducing Boot Camp to run WinXP on Intel Macs suggests that Apple wants the cake and eat it too! It wants to gain market share without opening up it's hardware to competition. If Microsoft only released it's OS to Dell or HP or even it's own proprietary PC, such as a Xbox variant, every lawyer, state and country will takes up arms/pens and file every lawsuit under the sun. However, when Apple and Steve Jobs does this with OSX, it seems to get away with it. The question of this poll is: should Apple be compelled, now, to release OSX to the x86 generic PCs and thereby open up the hardware side of it's business. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wiseguy2K Posted April 5, 2006 Share Posted April 5, 2006 The layers and who not are not up in arms about Apple, for the simple fact that they do not sell to other manufacturers. They make their OS for their own platform Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
A Nonny Moose Posted April 5, 2006 Share Posted April 5, 2006 Here we go again. Apple is a hardware company cleverly disguised as a software company. The purpose of the software is so that you buy a Mac and use the software. Also, as a PRIVATE COMPANY (as opposed to one owned by the government), Apple can do what it wants in terms of selling/marketing, so long as it doesn't break any laws. Opening up the Mac OS will mean the DEATH OF APPLE. This is based on figures showing the profit margin for a new Mac vs the profit margin of an install disk. The profit margin on a new Mac is obviously higher than the cost of the install disk. So in order to open it up, Apple will need to sell a tremendous amount of Mac OS X disks (which won't happen) or raise the price of the OS X disk (which will increase supply but decrease demand, creating a surplus). Either way, Apple will have less money to work with, especially considering that most people want their Windows insecurity blanket. So Apple will lose money off of the deal and will eventually die off as a company if such an event happens. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
brainbone Posted April 6, 2006 Share Posted April 6, 2006 The only reason is that Apple is protecting it's monopoly on the hardware and software sides of it's business. Apple, with a less than 4% of the market, is in no way a monopoly. MacOSX may indeed come to the average PC, but this will only be if Apple sells enough Macs to the point where they ARE considered a monopoly, or until Apple finds they’ve hit the saturation point for selling Apple hardware, and feels the only way to keep growing is to license OSX to other OEMs instead of producing new hardware to fill different niches -- an unlikely event. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rogabean Posted April 6, 2006 Share Posted April 6, 2006 Here we go again. Apple is a hardware company cleverly disguised as a software company. The purpose of the software is so that you buy a Mac and use the software. Also, as a PRIVATE COMPANY (as opposed to one owned by the government), Apple can do what it wants in terms of selling/marketing, so long as it doesn't break any laws. Opening up the Mac OS will mean the DEATH OF APPLE. This is based on figures showing the profit margin for a new Mac vs the profit margin of an install disk. The profit margin on a new Mac is obviously higher than the cost of the install disk. So in order to open it up, Apple will need to sell a tremendous amount of Mac OS X disks (which won't happen) or raise the price of the OS X disk (which will increase supply but decrease demand, creating a surplus). Either way, Apple will have less money to work with, especially considering that most people want their Windows insecurity blanket. So Apple will lose money off of the deal and will eventually die off as a company if such an event happens. Here we go again. I've heard this argument a million times. Yes Apple is and will always be first and foremost a hardware company. BUT Apple could release it's OS to other systems and maintain the market share it has had for years. Most people I know that own Macs bought macs for LOOKS. The look of the physical machine. The OS was secondary consideration to them. I do not believe for one moment that the average Mac user would switch off to a white box machine and load OS X themselves. (we would. they wouldn't) My GF is a prime example of this. She doesn't care about the OS half as much as the look of the machine itself (she will only own/use Apple computers). Now Apple could in fact release a version of OS X ONLY available through the Apple store with hardware requirements (what they will/will not support), but NOT release it to any OEM. Only offer it as a single license retail product. You are not going to see OEM manufacturers purchasing it at retail cost for every machine. This would not hurt there hardware sales at all. It would be no different then Apple users who buy the OS to put on their older Apple hardware. (Like when I purchased tiger to install on my B&W G3) Now do I think Apple has any intention of do this? No, not really. But in all reality it would not hurt them to do so. That's like saying MS selling XP on retail shelves hurt's Dell's hardware sales. Most people would continue buying computers from their OEM.. whether it's Apple or otherwise. We are a different breed around here. Apple could give to the consumer the option of installing it on a whitebox PC, but with limited hardware support/requirements AND a price point high enough to make unrealistic for OEM builders. I'd personally set it at $199-299 Single License and add an actual product key (think windows+wpa). Hell I would pay $299 for a single licensed copy that I could install without hacks to my computer, but I would still keep buying actual Apple hardware for the girl. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
brainbone Posted April 6, 2006 Share Posted April 6, 2006 Now Apple could in fact release a version of OS X ONLY available through the Apple store with hardware requirements (what they will/will not support), but NOT release it to any OEM. Only offer it as a single license retail product. You are not going to see OEM manufacturers purchasing it at retail cost for every machine. Actually, if customers demand it, OEMs like Dell would purchase retail copies. It could also make piracy easier, since there wouldn't be any TPM lock to annoy the end user, and software updates would/should cleanly install. (more on this later) This would not hurt there hardware sales at all. It would be no different then Apple users who buy the OS to put on their older Apple hardware. (Like when I purchased tiger to install on my B&W G3) Yes, it could hurt hardware sales. That isn't necessarily a bad thing, as long as software sales could more than make up for the loss. However, as soon as there's a legal avenue for other OEMs to distribute OSX, some percentage of those non-Macs sold could have been Apple hardware sales. What exactly that percentage would be is hard to say - but it's not zero. But in all reality it would not hurt them to do so. That's like saying MS selling XP on retail shelves hurt's Dell's hardware sales. Most people would continue buying computers from their OEM.. whether it's Apple or otherwise. We are a different breed around here. Well, again, for each retail copy sold, that's a potential lost sale of a new PC from an OEM. Each PC sold from Compaq is, in Dell's view, a potential lost sale. What percentage would have bought Dell if, in this example, Compaq or retail, didn't exist? Difficult to quantify, but most likely not zero. Apple could give to the consumer the option of installing it on a whitebox PC, but with limited hardware support/requirements AND a price point high enough to make unrealistic for OEM builders. I'd personally set it at $199-299 Single License and add an actual product key (think windows+wpa). And we're back to potential piracy issues. Could require other measures (like wpa) that the retail sales themselves may not be able to offset the cost of, and/or would still take some percentage away from hardware sales. Hell I would pay $299 for a single licensed copy that I could install without hacks to my computer. So would I. But it's not a "no-brainer" for Apple. There are risks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OPTiK Posted April 6, 2006 Share Posted April 6, 2006 It used to be if you wanted to use mac software, you bought a mac. If you wanted to use windows software, you bought a PC. Now I think that companies like Dell, Compaq/HP will get flamed by Apple IntelMac sales since computer users now have the option to purchase a hybrid that can run both sets of software standards. Just my two cents. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CoolBits Posted April 6, 2006 Share Posted April 6, 2006 Apple hardware company...yeah... they get components from manufacturers like intel, ati, nvidia, and others, they put it together and charge it almost 2x price... Except for ipod i dont know... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Icebreaker Posted April 6, 2006 Share Posted April 6, 2006 In the software business, the cost of producing the software is fixed, so it doesn´t increase much if you sell more copies. Apple has produced not just the OSX but also programmes like iLife, Aperture, Final Cut etc that could be sold in a much higher quantity than is possible now. So my opinion is that Apple is sacrificing alot by trying to make money out of selling overpriced hardware. IMO, Apple would continue to sell a lot of computers even though they would start to sell its software for PCs. If you don´t agree to this, just find a Apple fanboy sites and see how people there are not so exited about having OSX on a PC. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
brainbone Posted April 6, 2006 Share Posted April 6, 2006 they get components from manufacturers like intel, ati, nvidia, and others, they put it together and charge it almost 2x price... Yes.... and your point is.... ?? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CoolBits Posted April 6, 2006 Share Posted April 6, 2006 My point is that apple should concentrate on software as they now DONT have any special hardware... its same hardware as in all PCs and i built some pcs by now...Hell anybody with a little knowledge can build a PC with componets allready made.. All Apple does is they put in their TPM and EFI so that they can make osx only for themselves... Now this is hardware company?? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ouch Posted April 6, 2006 Share Posted April 6, 2006 There is comparitively little cash to be had in retail sales of an operating system - and microsoft has OEMs over a barrel, they won't do anything to risk their pricing agreements with microsoft. Offering OSX pre-installed would almost certainly provoke the beast. Even if it was offered as a pre-installed environment your Joe AVerage probably wouldn't know what OS X was and would just choose windows anyway. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
brainbone Posted April 6, 2006 Share Posted April 6, 2006 All Apple does is they put in their TPM and EFI so that they can make osx only for themselves...Now this is hardware company?? All Dell does is -- exactly the same thing -- without TPM and EFI, and they're a hardware company. The question is, would OSX sold on it's own be enough to offset the lost hardware sales? What is the "killer app." that the corp. buyers can't do without that would entice them to purchase OSX in enough volume? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ampTK Posted April 6, 2006 Share Posted April 6, 2006 Most people that think Apple will sell freely OS X don't take into consideration that the profit margins of Apple hardware are really high, and it is very low on software (except Pro apps), so if they got rid of hardware whey will need to raise prices (inducing piracy), and they use part of that "extra" money to pay for Software development and R&D. Other problem is that inexperienced users will never say: "I like that OS, I think I'm going to buy it" because many don't even fully comprehend the concept of OS, they just will buy "that machine I like how it works", so probably they could license their OS to other manufacturers, but since price of the software raised, the machines will cost more,maybe no as much as apple's, but will be more expensive and not as pretty, so people will ask themselves if it with it. Other facts that 80% of Apple's profit comes from Hardware sells (part of that is from the iPod, but still), so apple can't just suddenly stop making computers, such a big change in their business model takes time, a lot of planing and it's risky. And why risk the company if it is already in one of the most profitable moments in their history (in part thx to the iPod, but if they mess up with this the ipod wont save the company) happen. I can go on and on, but what's the point, no one will change my opinion that for now (and for quite some time), a move like that doesn't make sense, and won't happen. And those who think apple should/will do it, won't change their mind either Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Icebreaker Posted April 6, 2006 Share Posted April 6, 2006 There is one argument that I forgot and it is against what I said earlier today....maybe someone has said this earlier, but: The problem with selling MacOSX for every PC out there would require Apple or the hardware makers to produce tons of drivers and these drivers would slow down the OS....this is one of Windows´s problem. It was e.g. not a bright move for M$ to have Vista backwards compatible... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oldschool Posted April 6, 2006 Share Posted April 6, 2006 My point is that apple should concentrate on software as they now DONT have any special hardware...its same hardware as in all PCs and i built some pcs by now...Hell anybody with a little knowledge can build a PC with componets allready made.. All Apple does is they put in their TPM and EFI so that they can make osx only for themselves... Now this is hardware company?? Are you 12? I use Apple Hardware since 20 years and they DO HAVE special hardware... And the fact is, they ever used special hardware with his "special" os and it works great! The best way is to push darwin and the drivers and the freaks would have fun. The normal user buy a mac and get an optimum of hard- and software. SO, no generic osx for all. Btw. i got a cd for generic pc with the osx 10.0 from apple years ago and nobody believed the existence of it... Rgrds. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Colonel Posted April 6, 2006 Share Posted April 6, 2006 Btw. i got a cd for generic pc with the osx 10.0 from apple years agoand nobody believed the existence of it... I thought that they didn't even make a developer's copy since 10.4.1. I knew the had been making OS X for intel for the past 5 years, but I thought only people INSIDE Apple had a copy. Do you still have it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oldschool Posted April 6, 2006 Share Posted April 6, 2006 yeeep, i´ll search for it, find it and let you know. okay? Rgds. PS: Does anyone know the "hexorcist" (maybe wrong typed) from apple...? what a fun! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rogabean Posted April 8, 2006 Share Posted April 8, 2006 The "Intel OS 10.0" oldschool is referring too is a old and very rare install disk for when OS 10 was still under the name Rhapsody. It's kinda ugly ({censored} hybrid of os x, server and 9)... only supports limited hardware, but it runs on x86. There were a couple of groups that wanted to work on it and bring it up to date as a modern OS. Most of them as far as I know gave up the ghost or were dmca'd into the ground. was a fun disk to play around with... couldn't tell you where my copy went too though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
A Nonny Moose Posted April 8, 2006 Share Posted April 8, 2006 Are you 12? Any semblance of an argument you had got completely negated by this one comment. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
G5rocks Posted April 8, 2006 Share Posted April 8, 2006 guys stop this outdated discussion - we allready had official mac clones in the past. the first thing steve job did when he returned was to stop the clone contracts. apple lost to much money in these days why should they do the same mistake twice? btw: there is no difference if you let others sell PPCs or x86s that can run your OS so this is really the same. and to this guy who think mac users buy them because of the look: hello? maybe you are 12 too - mac is not "they come in colors" or anything of the post beige time. the mac is a ergonomically high quality tool that is build to work and since some years they have a nice design too. ok they allways had a good design... maybe not from 1993 to 1997 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Colonel Posted April 9, 2006 Share Posted April 9, 2006 Check this out http://cgi.ebay.com/Apple-Developer-CDs-In...1QQcmdZViewItem Mac OS X 10.0 for Intel a.k.a Rhapsody Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
As The Penguin Flies Posted April 11, 2006 Share Posted April 11, 2006 I don't know if any of you have thought of it this way, but OS X is going to be ported to all generic PCs whether apple does it or not. Honestly, with all the work we have been doing, what will we end up with? A version of OS X that can hypothetically run on a generic PC. I mean, isn't that the end goal of all these patches and tests? Apple has two things to worry about, cost of developing drivers (or creating an environment where companies would develop them themselves) and the actual abillity to lure people to their hardware using their OS. Average Joe gets a licensed (direct from apple) copy of OS X and installs it on his pc, finds he likes it etc. What is average Joe gonna do next time he wants a computer? Look to apple, that is so long as they don't OEM OS X. It seems rather simple, and once again apple can say "This hardware is MADE for the OS you love. Think of how much better that will be. No questions, no worrying about getting updated drivers, it's all a piece of cake." In this scenario, OS X becomes the lure BACK to the hardware. Those already converted are not gonna run off and buy a pc laptop and reformat it with OS X. It's not really logical, too much effort for the average user. They're gonna go to the same place they always did because they know what to expect. Jane Smith sitting around on the internet says, "Ok I want a new apple. That pc is cheaper and I can buy OS X for it... but in that case I'm also paying for windows, which I don't use. Plus I'm gonna have to worry about drivers etc. It's too much hassle." this customer is obviously not lost by apple's choice. People are willing to pay a few hundred extra for state of mind, as we have seen with macs for a long while. I see NO reason why Apple shouldn't release OS X for generic PCs. The possible profits outweigh the cost. There is no way they can dramatically increase their market share with something like dual boot, it's too much hassle for the average person. Possibly difficult file transfer etc. And if they have EVER wanted the gaming market, they MUST allow users to customize an OS X running computer. Just thinking of all the doors a generic PC OS X would open up for apple makes my mind explode. An Apple purist would have you believe apple is nothing without a controlled hardware scene, but that's just idillic nonsense. If it's market share apple wants, they need to make the product available to every type of user, from the guy who can barely use word to the people like us who, I seem to think, enjoy toying with the innards of computers. Apple cannot, and will not, "convert the masses" until they can actually reach them. And frankly, with all the work they've put into the switch to x86... not producing a generic PC OS X would seem negligence or oversight on their part. The hard part is done, it's just time to finish it off. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zappadoc Posted April 11, 2006 Share Posted April 11, 2006 yeah! you right, people are now focused on apps and not OS they (we) want to be able to run any software on any hardware, so MAC OS X will be on your PC very soon "kissing" Windows and linux OS at the same time and the key component will certanly be "Virtualization"... Z Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Beringer Posted April 11, 2006 Share Posted April 11, 2006 @oldschool As a HW man of 20+ years I raised my eyebrows rather sharply at your last post. Here's a challenge: Open up any present day Mac and look at the components, and then show me ANY that is specific to Apple! Don't waste your time, cause you are unlikely to find any.. The thing that makes them special is the composition, firmware and integration with software. Apple is MUCH too small to have silicon forged to their specs. The only exeption would be ASIC's and FPGA's, but they are designed to be application specific, not just for Apple. Even the TPM in the ADP was a standard animal (Infineon?) When you take off your fanboy-specs you will see the world much clearer...... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts