I have an idea how OSX could be released for PCs and Apple could still sell their Hardware

[bliss]

So just a thought:

 

What do OS X86 useres want? Thei want to build their own personal PC with their own components and decide by theirself if the machine is cheap or not.

Maybe they want wo modify their pc later. Maybe start with a Core Solo and later buy an Core2Duo or something...

AND they want to run OSX on it LEGALLY

 

Well..

 

What Apple wants: Apple wants to sell its Hardware. They couldn surwife if they wouldn't sell Hardware, because they are a Hardware manufacter primary.

 

So here's the compromise:

 

Apple could sell Do-It-Yourself kits.

-their logicboard

-the case

-and maybe the power supply (is its not a standard one to use with the logicboard)

 

and the customers can put in it what they want. and dont need to buy the expensive other hardware from apple, because a maxtor harddisc is a maxtor harddisc and is not better just because apple sells it more expensive.

 

So, because of Mac OS X ist the best OS on the Planet and everyone wants to use it, apple could get rich just selling logicboards and cases (and keyboards and mice)

 

But i think it's Apples image and they are too greedy to do this.

But if they would, that would really be "thinking different"

 

what do you think?

[gwprod12]

I think it's a great idea. Though everyone else will declaim how it will bankrupt apple ;-p

[sandmanfvrga]

Yeah, I can hear it now: Oh God, Apple will die!!!!!111eleven

 

Piff. Apple needs to get with it or they will kill themselves over time or at least never grow.

[Jeezoflip]

You can do this. Look here

[INFNITE]

Yeah, I can hear it now: Oh God, Apple will die!!!!!111eleven

 

Piff. Apple needs to get with it or they will kill themselves over time or at least never grow.

 

didn't Apple's marketshare increase to 4.8% last quarter? Apple is doing as well as they have ever been, and I don't think they're gonna die out any time soon. Their iPod division alone will sustain the company for quite some time, and more people than ever are switching over to Mac.

[sandmanfvrga]

Dude, that was a joke. So many on the net say Apple will die when they change something and it is stupid. I saw all the bitching on the PearPC forum and it was pathetic. Now those idiots have nothing to say and Apple is doing better as you said. If these kits did come out, more would raise hell on the net.

[BuXb]

bliss, I think that is a really great idea, and also I think it is worth following marketwise for Apple. You should put in a decent looking form with your logo and everything , save it as Pdf /that they see it is not just a weirdo kid having some {censored} idea), call Apple and find out who you will need to send it to, and send the Pdf to the email address they told you attached via email.

 

Let us know about the status of this project, it is a really worthwhile compromise! Once the desktop PCs are out people will start swapping parts again anyway (as we have been doing in the past).

[A Nonny Moose]

I think it's a good idea that won't result in the death of Apple. But let's be serious here: how many people would actually do this? a few thousand? It's a small minority of a small minority we're talking about here. It's still a good idea, but the numbers game might be the shooting in the foot.

[drrty byl]

Apple could do well to retail the os for intel clones if they branded it separately from the whole "superior hardware"/"lifestyle hardware" programme. Maybe it could be the equivalent of that lower-end windows xp released for developing countries whose populations can't afford full-blown windows and where everyone just pirates. Let's face it -- Apple will never exceed 20% of the os market share when the mac os is only available to run on computers that sell for a considerable amount even in wealthy parts of the world.

 

That is of course, unless hordes of people begin illegally installing os x on generic boxes And then of course Apple will just be missing out on money they could have made selling install DVD licenses..

[willgonz]

Ok, if they don't sell it for Intel Clones, it will continue to be hacked. This is a given. It will not be long until the leapord preview the devs got during WWDC06 gets out into the wild. And it won't be long until we are all installing it. If I were them, I would just sell the OS for Intel white boxes. You can use it and all the fancy features. However, if you want the power and the beauty, buy Apple Hardware.

 

There are tons of MP3 players on the market but the iPOD is the first choice for some. If you can't afford it you'll buy something else.

 

Also, Apple says MAC sales are up. All they did is move to Intel. The thing is, folks are buying the pretty hardware, installing boot camp and just running Windows XP.

[embries]

I think the thing that people are missing here, and the thing that separates Mac from Windows, is the fact that it "Just Works". They're able to do this because they have a small set of hardware on which they test thoroughly. They then only sell their OS with this hardware and they're pretty sure it's all going to work when they send it out the door. If they sell their OS separately, or allow you to "build your own" or anything of the kind, then they're going to have to start supporting many more brands of hardware. This will really increase their support costs while decreasing the revenue from sales of hardware. I think they could sustain one or the other, either loss of revenue from hardware sales, or increased costs of support for supporting more hardware, but probably not both.

 

This is the major reason that Windows has it's plethora of issues. The sheer number of hardware devices that Windows has to support makes it huge and ungainly. It means that every little update takes for ever to be tested because it has to be tested against that crazy list of harware to be sure it's going to work. Also backwards compatibility is a huge concern for Windows. They carry an exhorbitant amount of legacy information in the system. This is due again to the huge number of devices the OS has to support. Those are a couple of things I don't really want in my OS. Also, when you compare that kind of task against a smaller company like Apple, I think you're asking a little too much.

 

We've made a good amount of progress, however, by porting over to Intel. Also with this move we can really begin to take advantage of the OS and community to get support for all the devices that are available on this platform. I think this will free up Apple to offer more things on the BTO options. Once they gain confidence in this market, I think you'll see more and more options from 3rd party vendors. And maybe, just maybe, eventually a licensable OS.

 

Just my opinion as a Windows SysAdmin, who happens to love his Macs.

[willgonz]

People commonly use the argument " they're going to have to start supporting many more brands of hardware." I disagree. A ton of us got OS X to work on a ton of different configurations. If Apple let the hardware vendors handle the drivers, then the hardware vendors can support their own. Also, Apple could say, "If you buy OS X you can install it on anything it will work on, however, unless it is on Apple Hardware it is unsupported." I don't know anyone who calls Microsoft support when something breaks, they call me. Then I figure it out or Google for the answer.

[embries]

People commonly use the argument " they're going to have to start supporting many more brands of hardware." I disagree. A ton of us got OS X to work on a ton of different configurations. If Apple let the hardware vendors handle the drivers, then the hardware vendors can support their own. Also, Apple could say, "If you buy OS X you can install it on anything it will work on, however, unless it is on Apple Hardware it is unsupported." I don't know anyone who calls Microsoft support when something breaks, they call me. Then I figure it out or Google for the answer.

 

And then you would have a Windows OS not the Mac OS that we're accustomed to. You'd have OSXHQL certified drivers (as compared to WHQL certified). And then vendors would be resposible for the rest. It's a fundamental difference in the way the two companies operate. Apple tightly integrates with a select set of vendors who then can work together as a team to get it done. It's just plain simpler.

[poofyhairguy]

A ton of us got OS X to work on a ton of different configurations.

 

And after two years of using only Linux ("the hard OS") on my desktop, OSX86 on my Dell (which is the example computer on the OSX86 home page) was by far the hardest OS hacking job I have ever done.

So bad example.

[embries]

And after two years of using only Linux ("the hard OS") on my desktop, OSX86 on my Dell (which is the example computer on the OSX86 home page) was by far the hardest OS hacking job I have ever done.

So bad example.

I got OSX86 on several computers including a couple Dells. I'll say some were easier than others, but my point was that you would be taking one of the defining characteristics of the Apple/Mac system and throwing it out the window. I don't think it's worth it. A different and more plausible solution (to me at least) would be to allow 3rd party manufacturers again, only do it with better quality control this time. Could you imagine Dell manufactured Macs? Apple could set their profit requirement to Dell, and allow Dell to work on the rest. Since Dell already supports Linux to some degree and has various hardware contracts, it might be able to purchase in sufficient quantity to still satisfy Apple while making its own profit and providing units at retail price below their Apple brand counterparts.

[BuXb]

And after two years of using only Linux ("the hard OS") on my desktop, OSX86 on my Dell (which is the example computer on the OSX86 home page) was by far the hardest OS hacking job I have ever done.

So bad example.

If Apple had released an unhacked (not deliberately restricted) version of their OS we would not have had to hack it - so bad example ..