Petition for MAC OSX to be released on PCs

[gaetanfo]

Gates does not sell computers. Still it makes more money than Steve.

 

For one I hope the European Union (which is gettinh tough with Microsoft, (because XP

includes media software) will find that Apple has anti-competitive attitude when it

blocks OSX installation on competitors' machines that can run it.

[BRP]

just because the united states constitution gives you the right to petition doesnt mean you can get what you want. companies dont care about far fetched wishes of their consumers. psp user petitioned for homebrew, look where theyve gotten with that.

It gives you the right to petition the government. You can send in a letter with 50000 signatures to the Congress saying that you all oppose July being National Ice Cream Month and that they should move it to June (why? I don't know) or to Arnold Schwarzenegger that says you believe he should push for ferret legalization in California... WITHOUT having the Secret Poliss knocking on (down?) your door the next day.

 

Corporations can decide not to give a care for really small niches if they don't see it in their best business interests (and with "piracy" the way it is these days... yeah). They can make it hard. They can make it easy. They can decide to sue you or not sue you. But Apple thinks is in its best interest (and any hardware company making any OS would; imagine the nightmare of having to support heaven-knows-what!) to only develop operating systems for their own hardware. IBM lost a serious amount of money when they rushed the PC out and handed the OS business to Microsoft. As long as Apple keeps their products substantially cooler than the PC market (and targetting the desktop publishing, educational, and currently the film industry) to the average consumer, they can make sales. The iPod has done them wonders, because being among other things (like simple and holding lots and lots of music) it's a marketing super-success. To the average person who can afford it, it's really cool. And that marketing drives their sales for hardware; keeping OS X officially Mac-exclusive is as much a business decision as making iTunes not Mac-exclusive.

[bwhsh8r]

Its not going to work because if Apple does that theyll go broke... BROKe, and besides Steve Job is an a s s hole that will not allow it, maybe when the next leader comes, maybe then.

 

 

 

bwhsh8r

[gwprod12]

let's see here. How many computers does Dell sell a year? 75 million? Let's let Dell put a copy of OS X on each one. They'll pay Apple a $100 licensing fee to do so (same they pay MSFT or thereabouts). That right there is 7.5 billion dollars. Apple posted I believe $1 Billion in profit last year. $7.5 billion in profit is inferior to $1 billion dollars in profit because it's not about profit. It's about souls.

 

EDIT: Those numbers are a bit soft, so dont freak out.

I dont know what the average profit on their computers is, but... Apple sold 6 million ipods, and they took in a little under $13 billion in revenue. Assuming the average ipod is $200, then $12 billion in revenue can be attributed to the iPod and not the mac. Apple sold 1 million macs, which leaves an average ticket of $1000 per mac bundle. This could be off, but you get the picture.

 

Dell, who's primary business is selling computers, took in $45 billion dollars of revenue. Assuming their average ticket is $1000, that's 45 million dell computers. Assuming Dell paid Apple $100 to use their OS, that would have been $4.5 billion dollars in profit for Apple. Let's say that instead of $100 a unit, Dell paid $50 a unit. That's $2.5 billion dollars in profit. That's more profit than Apple made in revenue on Macs in 2005. And that's only 17% of the market.

 

If Apple made a serious bid to dominate the operating system market and bundled their OS with Dell's and Compaqs etc, they'd make a LOT more money. AND, they could sell their professional macs to design firms and colleges. Because a Quad Merom 2.16ghz with 8gb of ram etc could fetch a good price as a rendering station.

[bwhsh8r]

You make a very good point... if osx took over ALL OEM sales on dell, compaq etc... but it wouldnt, it would be a uncommon thing, not very many people would dump theyre windows.... you can buy oem linux, but do all oem pcs come with linux? but it would still make them some money, but it would probobly hurt them because they are not making a hardware sale, and there hardware is always overpriced so then very fiew people would buy there hardware, so theyd be losing alot more than they are gainig. Id personially not buy a osx tan box. plus theyd have to add soo much support and everything... it would ruine them.

 

 

max

[EPDM]

let's see here. How many computers does Dell sell a year? 75 million? Let's let Dell put a copy of OS X on each one. They'll pay Apple a $100 licensing fee to do so (same they pay MSFT or thereabouts). That right there is 7.5 billion dollars. Apple posted I believe $1 Billion in profit last year. $7.5 billion in profit is inferior to $1 billion dollars in profit because it's not about profit. It's about souls.

 

And how will you convince Dell to buy/sell a Mac OS X license instead of a Windows lincense?

 

It's not only about what Apple wants. There are other parties involved here too.

 

 

As for the Apple being a Hardware company. Well they issued cloning licenses in the past. Not to mention that the hackintosh community has proven that you don't need to be a genius to build a PC which runs OSX quite good. So it's not hard to tell Dell that if certain machines comply to the Apple requirements (cpu-, gfx- and chipsetwise) it is possible to install OSX on them.

 

I guess that Dell and/or HP aren't intrested in OSX at all. Look at Linux. It's a totally free OS (you can even get the source code of). Every distro comes bundled with a ton of applications and still after all those years nobody delivers PC's bundled with a Linux distro. Which is weird because that could even LOWER retail prices significantly. Don't you guys ask yourself why? I mean selling a PC for 500$ with a linux distro or selling that same machine for 600$ with a Windows CD. And in both cases you'd have a legally obtained OS.

 

They're playing with us. All of them.

[gwprod12]

Um.

 

You dont need to convince Dell to use Mac OS X. Dell already wants it. You need to convince Apple to sell OS X to Dell.

 

If you've ever used Linux, you know that there's no way Grandma Moses or little Timmy 8yo would ever be able to get anything done with it. For simplicity & usability... OS X > Windows > Linux.

 

Most power users build their own computers.

[A Nonny Moose]

Um.

 

You dont need to convince Dell to use Mac OS X. Dell already wants it. You need to convince Apple to sell OS X to Dell.

 

Dell wants it because it will destroy Apple. Licensing the OS to Dell means that nobody will buy Dells (people want their Windows insecurity blanket).

[gwprod12]

Well, that's beside the point. Dell wants it, that's not in dispute, and was the direct answer to the question "How will you convince Dell to use it?". They dont need convincing. Apple does.

[MacSpaces]

This wont happen for numerous business reasons i see alot of you are not inclined to.

for 1 apple is a software, HARDWARE company wich means that if they decide to sell

their software to run on any generic hardware their net worth 9.+ billion will drop dramatically. And just think for 1 second think outside the box what that means to a company fighting for share.

 

shure it will bring a dramatic market share percentage to their bussiness but compare

a 179 price tag & a 2000+ dollar sale... (who would want to buy a 1999.99 priced laptop when they can get a 800 dollar and run mac os x?)

 

besides when it comes down to bussiness when 2 companys are alike the more dominant one always takes the cherry (and apple is not microsoft YET)

and in a bussiness you need diffrence and apple is the only company actually providing software to be ran on exclusive hardware.

 

look at linux & windows everything regarding business is 3 and apple is holding its spot very well and is actually gaining share.

 

i see this happening when they have top share market and their in a position to defend their business right now they are in a process of gaining not maintaining.

 

some of you need to stop thinking as an end user and see the big picture.

 

their playing offense trying to score a goal win the game not defend something they dont have is all about strategy TRUST ME they have one

 

AND IM PRETTY SURE APPLE WANTS A O.S DOMINATION BUT MICROSOFT HAVE IT LOCKED SO APPLES UP THE BAT TO PROVIDE BOTH AT THE SAME TIME.

i mean apple have to be diffrent they just have to is business

[gwprod12]

not the "hardware" company bit again. so tired and old, it's practically my twin.

 

The question isnt "is this a good business decision" for Apple. That's for Apple to decide.

 

The question is "can Apple remain profitable by licensing their OS?". They can.

 

To answer the people who say "No one will ever use Mac OS on a Dell". I say, great. Then nothing changes.

 

To answer those who say "Apple's making $2000 on a computer, but would only make $200 on an operating system". A macbook costs a fair bit of money to produce. A dvd and a box cost what, a dollar?

 

If Apple doesnt want to do it (which they dont), that's fine. But these "Apple would go bankrupt if they did that" BS is just that.

 

The problem back in the day, which soured Apple on clones was this. They licensed a piece of garbage motherboard design to the clone manufacturers along with their operating system. Somehow, the cloners managed to make clones that were significantly cheaper, performed better and were more reliable than the Apple's based on the same reference design. That cut into Apple's business. Well, frankly, it's hard to maintain the illusion that your hardware is better when everyone else's hardware performs better, is more reliable and is cheaper than yours.

 

(These facts might be in dispute, so I'll try to find a source)

[bluedragon1971]

The problem back in the day, which soured Apple on clones was this. They licensed a piece of garbage motherboard design to the clone manufacturers along with their operating system. Somehow, the cloners managed to make clones that were significantly cheaper, performed better and were more reliable than the Apple's based on the same reference design. That cut into Apple's business. Well, frankly, it's hard to maintain the illusion that your hardware is better when everyone else's hardware performs better, is more reliable and is cheaper than yours.

 

(These facts might be in dispute, so I'll try to find a source)

 

You are pretty much right there. The problem you are ignoring is that there is little or nothing keeping the same thing from happening today if Apple chose to license the OS again. Apple would make (some) money licensing the OS, but I really doubt they would make enough to offset the amount they would lose from hardware sales. Obviously someone at Apple feels the same way since they don't seem inclined to license the OS right now, or even make it officially available for non-Apple machines.

[AppleLegal]

Companies like Alienware have proved that serious gamers will spend over $4,000 for a high-end PC. I'm sure they would be willing to provide a similar amount for a Macintosh if it proves itself to be a superior gaming machine.

Companies like Alienware have proved that gullible people can be tricked into wasting money to buy an overpriced computer.

 

let's see here. How many computers does Dell sell a year? 75 million? Let's let Dell put a copy of OS X on each one. They'll pay Apple a $100 licensing fee to do so (same they pay MSFT or thereabouts). That right there is 7.5 billion dollars. Apple posted I believe $1 Billion in profit last year. $7.5 billion in profit is inferior to $1 billion dollars in profit because it's not about profit. It's about souls.

Money isnt everything. If you license the OS and it sells on inferior products, that arent stable, then it can ruin the Company for having to support those bad machines as opposed to the good one's it knows it makes on its own. If your going to run a successful company, you look to have a long run, years down the line with people still buying your products. You dont look to cash in quickly and hope it works out later on. Apple realizes this. You dont seem to.

 

The question is "can Apple remain profitable by licensing their OS?". They can.

How do you know this. EVERY assumption you've made, and you've made NOTHING but assumptions, h ave been based on the ASSUMPTION that people will automatically switch from Windows to OS X in 30 seconds flat.

 

To answer those who say "Apple's making $2000 on a computer, but would only make $200 on an operating system". A macbook costs a fair bit of money to produce. A dvd and a box cost what, a dollar?

And the 200 dollar system works at 1/10th the speed and with 1/10th the functionality of the $2000 one. All the fancy features - Parallels for example - need the right processor, which IS not included in your $200 system.

 

Sure, i can go out and buy a Walkman for $5 dollars at the thrift store and listen to music, but i'd rather buy a CD player for $15 and choose which track i listen to, or an iPod Nano for $100 and have multiple cd's and songs to listen to. Notice the correlation between Price and Functionality? Same thing with your $200 vs $2000 dollar computers.

 

Im not going to sign the petition. It's a pointless waste of time.

[bluedragon1971]

And the 200 dollar system works at 1/10th the speed and with 1/10th the functionality of the $2000 one. All the fancy features - Parallels for example - need the right processor, which IS not included in your $200 system.

 

I think you were misreading what he wrote there. He said nothing about a $200 system versus a $2000 system, he was talking about selling a $200 OS versus selling a $2000 computer.

 

I do agree with you about the petition though, these online petition things are a farce. No one, I repeat, NO ONE at the companies involved ever pays one bit of attention to them because it is too easy for people to sign them multiple times.

 

errrrrrr, not exactly.

 

The computing world is run by gamers and media centers. The MAC Line needs better price points.

 

In your fantasies maybe. The reality is that the computing world is ruled by businesses. The only thing that the gaming market drives is the video card market, and to some extent the CPU market. Everything else is driven by business needs. The fact that you can get an awesome gaming and media computer is just a nice side effect.

[gwprod12]

AppleLegal. Well, of course you think I'm wrong. I would too, if I interpreted what I had said in such a bizarre and adled way ;-p

 

Let me get this straight. If Apple went to Dell today and said "Let us sell you 10 million licenses for your computers at $200 a pop" and Dell agreed... the fact that people didnt buy the OS X Dells would hurt Apple... how?

 

And, if you go to Dell and say "Hey Dell, you can use OS X, but only on a proscribed set of hardware, otherwise it wont work" and Dell uses that hardware... how is that hardware not stable or supported? (we see that it's only minor software tricks that keep OS X from running on a standard intel box).

 

Microsoft doesnt support Dell OEM Windows. Why would Apple support Dell OEM Mac OS?

 

The worst case scenario, that I can see, is that if Apple decides to license OS X to Dell, and no one wants it... Dell's out the licensing fees. Dell wants it. They think they can sell it. If they're wrong, it sucks to be them.

 

I dont see how selling the operating system on an "inferior" machine (Mac's are inherently superior, that's what you're saying, right?) would somehow make people who want to buy an Apple Mac switch to windows.

 

The situation with the old clones was that Apple sold an inferior machine for more money. Obviously you cant compete when your POS costs $3000 and Motorola's slightly better model costs $1200.

 

bluedragon: I'm not ignoring anything. Apple wasnt losing money in the clone days. They were losing Apple Mac sales. If Apple's a business, they're about making money. If they're a cult, well... that's a horse of a different color.

 

And I'm not saying Apple "should" do it. I'm saying they could, and it wouldnt cause the end of days.

[bluedragon1971]

bluedragon: I'm not ignoring anything. Apple wasnt losing money in the clone days. They were losing Apple Mac sales. If Apple's a business, they're about making money. If they're a cult, well... that's a horse of a different color.

 

Apple Mac sales == money. Of course Apple was losing money due to the lost sales. Are you so ignorant that you can't see that? I'm glad I don't work for any company that YOU manage.

[gwprod12]

I guess the term "market penetration" doesnt mean anything.

 

I seriously doubt they teach the "overpriced garbage to the core faithful" method at Harvard Business School.

 

EDIT: For ever Mac sale lost to Powercomputing and Motorola... Apple received a licensing fee. Revenue != Profit. Just ask ATI.

 

EDIT 2: Drones dont know anything about management. That's why they're drones.

[AppleLegal]

Let me get this straight. If Apple went to Dell today and said "Let us sell you 10 million licenses for your computers at $200 a pop" and Dell agreed... the fact that people didnt buy the OS X Dells would hurt Apple... how?

Hardware sales? Despite the popularity of the iPod, and OS X as software, Hardware is still a major part of Apple's corprate marketing/image. OS X has a certain look - and the macines that they're sold with have that look as well.

 

And, if you go to Dell and say "Hey Dell, you can use OS X, but only on a proscribed set of hardware, otherwise it wont work" and Dell uses that hardware... how is that hardware not stable or supported? (we see that it's only minor software tricks that keep OS X from running on a standard intel box).

Because of the TPM chip, that Apple puts in, that Dell cant. That changes the system around. Besides - EFI isnt a "Minor software trick"

 

The worst case scenario, that I can see, is that if Apple decides to license OS X to Dell, and no one wants it... Dell's out the licensing fees. Dell wants it. They think they can sell it. If they're wrong, it sucks to be them.

Except, that wont happen. Apple's worred - rightly so - that if they license the OS, then it will be sold at cheper prices - if Dell sells OS X machines for $800, and Apple sells them for $2000, which one would you buy? The Dell. And Apple only gets $200 from the sale, whereas Dell will get $600. Big difference.

 

it wouldnt cause the end of days.

it would be a comipletely new marketing idea though. Even with the switch to Intel from PPC - Apple changed it's technical range somewhat. Not to far as they've been working on x86 and PPC for years before. Whereas if Apple was to shift their marketing from "Only we sell our OS" to "Anyone can sell it with a licensing fee," It's a huge difference.

[PGHammer]

Companies like Alienware have proved that gullible people can be tricked into wasting money to buy an overpriced computer.

Money isnt everything. If you license the OS and it sells on inferior products, that arent stable, then it can ruin the Company for having to support those bad machines as opposed to the good one's it knows it makes on its own. If your going to run a successful company, you look to have a long run, years down the line with people still buying your products. You dont look to cash in quickly and hope it works out later on. Apple realizes this. You dont seem to.

How do you know this. EVERY assumption you've made, and you've made NOTHING but assumptions, h ave been based on the ASSUMPTION that people will automatically switch from Windows to OS X in 30 seconds flat.

 

And the 200 dollar system works at 1/10th the speed and with 1/10th the functionality of the $2000 one. All the fancy features - Parallels for example - need the right processor, which IS not included in your $200 system.

 

Sure, i can go out and buy a Walkman for $5 dollars at the thrift store and listen to music, but i'd rather buy a CD player for $15 and choose which track i listen to, or an iPod Nano for $100 and have multiple cd's and songs to listen to. Notice the correlation between Price and Functionality? Same thing with your $200 vs $2000 dollar computers.

 

Im not going to sign the petition. It's a pointless waste of time.

 

But there YOU are, assuming that a clone-builder will cut corners (which some did back when legal Mac clones existed, but not all; Power Computing certainly didn't). Those that *did* cut corners were largely killed off by those that didn't *before* Apple pulled the rug out from under all the clone-builders (and especially Power Computing, which made high-end Mac clones; in fact, the Power Computing clones had features that Apple's own Quadra lacked, and mostly cost less, feature for feature, than a Quadra).

 

Segue to today, when all current Macs are powered by the SAME Intel processors that Dell, HP, Alienware, etc. use (except the Core 2 series, which has not shown up in Macs yet). In what way is the Mac Pro motherboard different from dual-XEON workstation boards available outside Apple *other* than EFI? Will there be a midrange Core 2 Mac (between the Mac Pro and the iMac)? And if so, how will it differ from Core 2 PCs that are actually out there today? The difference between a Mac of today and a PC of today is a heck of a lot less than the differences between a Quadra and one of the Power Computing legal clones of its day. So your logic of comparing a Walkman to an iPod is full of more holes than a Swiss wheel the size of Lambeau Field. Apple has to *justify* that sticker shock, and it is well aware that it can no longer do so based purely on hardware. In short, objectively, it knows the Emperor has no clothes. So it makes the whole issue *subjective*. Appeal to the *fuzzy logic*. Don't let a silly thing like *hard logic* get in the way.

 

And because Apple has been reduced to using subjectivity and fuzzy logic, it does not DARE allow for gray-box OS X sales, let alone legal Mac clones. If Apple does either, it will have admitted that the Emperor has no clothes, which is the equivalent of saying that Apple's entire Mac argument is unsound.

 

I therefore *cannot*, in all good faith, sign the petition, because the chances of Apple actually paying it serious attention are zero.

[PGHammer]

Hardware sales? Despite the popularity of the iPod, and OS X as software, Hardware is still a major part of Apple's corprate marketing/image. OS X has a certain look - and the macines that they're sold with have that look as well.

Because of the TPM chip, that Apple puts in, that Dell cant. That changes the system around. Besides - EFI isnt a "Minor software trick"

Except, that wont happen. Apple's worred - rightly so - that if they license the OS, then it will be sold at cheper prices - if Dell sells OS X machines for $800, and Apple sells them for $2000, which one would you buy? The Dell. And Apple only gets $200 from the sale, whereas Dell will get $600. Big difference.

it would be a comipletely new marketing idea though. Even with the switch to Intel from PPC - Apple changed it's technical range somewhat. Not to far as they've been working on x86 and PPC for years before. Whereas if Apple was to shift their marketing from "Only we sell our OS" to "Anyone can sell it with a licensing fee," It's a huge difference.

 

 

And you just made my case as to why Apple will never allow legal clones. Quite honestly, now more than ever, the Apple sales pitch (for Macs) is far from objective. In fact, it isn't the least objective. It's entirely subjective (which isn't either qualitative or quantitative). It's *that warm and fuzzy feeling*. It's "that certain look". Not one single solitary objective bone anywhere in that argument. And to protect that entirely-subjective argument from being ruthlessly picked apart, they cannot afford to allow legal clone-building. (There is a reason why those that *only* have a subjective argument refuse to allow a logician to take a good look at it; their entire flow cannot withstand the cold and utterly savage assult under the brain of the logician. And then they say "How DARE you use logic; that is a most unfair way to argue!")

 

Steve Jobs himself gave a major hint as to how subjective Apple's argument was back at WWDC 2005 (when Tiger launched). He stated rather primly that *every single version* of OS X had also been tested on x86 processors. Not some of them, or most of them, but *all* of them. He then follows up with surprise #2 (Apple's switching from Motorola to Intel). Basically, it was Jobs himself that just said that the Emperor is nude! So who brings out the robe to cover up the Emperor's bits? Schiller. (It's his job.) He issues the *no clones* uber dictum. In fact, he comes right out and says that installing OS X on non-Apple hardware is a no-no. And he even has Apple Legal put it in writing. The Church of Mac breathes a sigh of relief. The ISVs pick themselves up off the floor and *also* breathe sighs of relief. However, the hacker crowd smells a challenge (and they remember Steve's words). They not only manage to workaround TPM and EFI, but they enable a PC user with only average (not even above-average) computer skill to install OS X (the current version, no less) on a distressingly wide variety of non-Apple hardware. Not only install the OS, but install most of the applications for that OS. And it didn't have to be a clone of Apple's tightly-secured Development Boxes, either. (I, personally, have run OS X 10.4.6 on a pretty generic x86 box, and it supported CoreImage and QuartzExtreme, with sound and accelerated video (I could even watch DVDs and playback H.264 on it). The hardware specs? A P4 2.6 Northwood-C, 1 GB of RAM, 40 GB Western Digital HD, dual DVD burners (more features than Apple's SuperDrive), ATI 9700 Pro AGP graphics (long supported on the OS X side). Not just old hardware by Mac standards, but old by even PC standards. And except for games, I could run darn near everything you could run on a Mac, including QuickTime, iTunes, and Office:mac. The trick is *easily duplicatable* by any PC user that has ever installed Windows. Any version.) However, once somebody realizes how easily the trick can be duplicated (remember, I said all it takes is average computer skills) it becomes rather difficult to get them to look subjectively at a Mac.

[sandmanfvrga]

Apple's worred - rightly so - that if they license the OS, then it will be sold at cheper prices - if Dell sells OS X machines for $800, and Apple sells them for $2000, which one would you buy? The Dell. And Apple only gets $200 from the sale, whereas Dell will get $600. Big difference.

 

That's Apple's problem. The Mac Pro, I never thought I would say this, is not over priced. You have QUAD core 64 bit, gig of ram, high end graphics card, 250 gig hdd, superdrive, and connections out the ass. That is a great deal. BUT the iMac and the notebooks are VERY overpriced. Thus Apple needs to lower the price. I truely wish that they could be slapped with a lawsuit for price gouging(sp?) on certain macs. I would pay $2499 for that Mac Pro, but I will NOT pay that price for a Macbook Pro when I can get the same thing, run OSX86 for half price or lower. Apple is hurting themselves and the quicker people like you and Apple see that, then Apple will be better off.

[fOZf8]

If/When Apple ever sells OSX unlocked on it's own, it will not be due to customer demand, it will only happen if they have no other choice as a final result. As of last year, they were in a pretty serious money hole, but I imagine they'd have to be on the brink of total liquidation, or maybe Jobs would have to retire or die, before this will happen...

[crazylikeastraw]

Its not going to work because if Apple does that theyll go broke... BROKe, and besides Steve Job is an a s s hole that will not allow it, maybe when the next leader comes, maybe then.

bwhsh8r

 

i fail to see why steve jobs is an "{censored}" for protecting his business. if you were in his position, you'd most likely do the same.

[Dragon]

i signed just for the fun of it

 

it won't happen though

[Turbo50t]

The Mac lineup does offer superior hardware. That's why it's so pricey.

 

Come on give me a break, Apple has Very Proprietary Hardware not better or even equal performance. Let's just take one peice of hardware, Video. How many Video solutions does Apple have for its line-up. Now take a look at the PC market hardware. You have hundreds of choices that smoke Apple video solutions. Can you get a 1gig video card for any Apple/Mac? Nope.

 

And that is the case with every piece of hardware comparison bettween the two. Bottom line is that Apple has a kickass Operating system that they should exploite by making it availible to PC platforms. Personaly I think that if they did they would give MS$ a real run for their money in just OS Sales.

 

Most Windows users that I know are IT guys and they hate MS$ OS. But right now it is the only choice they have.