Apple should sell OSx86

[Guest terry]

First, what does EFI mean?

"Extensible Firmware Interface"

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extensible_Firmware_Interface

 

Apple isn't going to use bios, they're using EFI.

Where do you know that from?

[bjr1028]

Where do you know that from?

 

It's the rumor of the day. Apple has already said they are not going to use Open Firmware on intel. BIOS is too ungainly for apple to use on a shipping product. They'd want something close to open firmware, but compatible with standard hardware. That leaves intel's EFI as the most logical candidate.

[bjr1028]

First, what does EFI mean?

 

Second, don't you think that if Apple would sell their OS that the hardware department will lose money and finally will be closed?

 

These are the same people who would like to burn you guys at the stake for installing OSX "on a ugly peecee box". Mac users hate ATX towers and love the minimalist all in one approach the iMac takes. I don't see Apple's user base going anywhere.

[Guest terry]

Thx for the quick reply...

 

It's the rumor of the day.

O.K., I see. When I read your comment, I was under the impression that I missed some concrete info on Apple's hardware designs that may have leaked recently and that you were not just talking about some rumors. That Apple might resort to EFI seems quite plausible to me, too, but AFAIK it's not clear to the general public yet which way Apple will choose.

[Tomovich]

These are the same people who would like to burn you guys at the stake for installing OSX "on a ugly peecee box". Mac users hate ATX towers and love the minimalist all in one approach the iMac takes. I don't see Apple's user base going anywhere.

 

Yes I'm an OSX user but I really don't care on what pc it runs. If Apple would license their OS then I wouldn't mind to buy a "grey box" if it's cheaper. But I just like the designs. But it's not worth it.

And I think it's a very big question. Because when they will stop their hardware department it means that they will focus on other things: software (OSX, iTunes,...) and gadgets (iPod, Media Center,...). Everybody knows Jobs wants that Apple will be the central thing in the homes of consumers.

[cyris ng]

A shrink wrapped copy of OS X for Intel will be available for purchase anywhere but it wont have support for non-Apple Computers. You'll need to depend on hackers to let it work on your hardware. Even then it would be a large inconvenience for anyone who uses it because updates wouldnt be as timely as people would want and hardware support would probably available by users and not direct from the hardware vendor.

 

Nice idea though but a few days using OS X on my PC has taught me that Apple does things too differently & more conveniently than PC makers.

[bjr1028]

Yes I'm an OSX user but I really don't care on what pc it runs. If Apple would license their OS then I wouldn't mind to buy a "grey box" if it's cheaper. But I just like the designs. But it's not worth it.

And I think it's a very big question. Because when they will stop their hardware department it means that they will focus on other things: software (OSX, iTunes,...) and gadgets (iPod, Media Center,...). Everybody knows Jobs wants that Apple will be the central thing in the homes of consumers.

 

Apple designs their software as an extention of their hardware (which is what they still make most of their money on). Apple is at its best when it comes up with an idea and designs a software/hardware package around that idea.

[Tomovich]

So you don't think they will close their hardware dept? But isn't Apple focusing on some other (more important) things now?

[bjr1028]

Not a chance in hell. Apple is not nor will ever be a software company. Everything they do is aimed at selling more Macs. As many iPods as they're selling, they don't make near as much money as as just the PowerMacs alone.

[Metrogirl]

I really don't want to add much to this tired old topic, everything's been said already. But the recent discussion has made me think one thing new - maybe, just maybe, if Apple's fortunes decline seriously, and their hardware business is looking really shaky, like they're selling iPods and not much else, then they might do an about-turn and concentrate on selling software and having a bash at Old Bill's monopoly. They always have that option, I suppose. But I'll probably be in a home for the terminally geriatric, drooling and wearing elastic-waist polyester pants before that day arrives!

[bjr1028]

By that time Vista will be out and the oppurtunity will have passed. Apple has about a 18-month window to license OSX and get a foot hold or copysoft once again will profit from Apple's ideas.

[Metrogirl]

By that time Vista will be out and the oppurtunity will have passed. Apple has about a 18-month window to license OSX and get a foot hold or copysoft once again will profit from Apple's ideas.

 

He he - I hope you're not seriously suggesting you think I'll be a gibbering senior citizen in 18 months' time? I was planning on another few decades of (near) sanity! Or did you mean that Vista will take that long to be released?

[Guest terry]

He he - I hope you're not seriously suggesting you think I'll be a gibbering senior citizen in 18 months' time? I was planning on another few decades of (near) sanity! Or did you mean that Vista will take that long to be released?

 

@bjr1028

 

 

Hehe.

 

 

Season's Greetings to all of you.

[ted]

I really don't want to add much to this tired old topic, everything's been said already. But the recent discussion has made me think one thing new - maybe, just maybe, if Apple's fortunes decline seriously, and their hardware business is looking really shaky, like they're selling iPods and not much else, then they might do an about-turn and concentrate on selling software and having a bash at Old Bill's monopoly. They always have that option, I suppose. But I'll probably be in a home for the terminally geriatric, drooling and wearing elastic-waist polyester pants before that day arrives!

 

I really don't think Steve Jobs would go that route. His approach has always been to put out a quality product, one that looks great and functions well and efficiently. The Mac software is no doubt better than windows in terms of ease of use and simplicity and by not having to support all the hardware out there they have been able to rest well assured that their hardware integrates perfectly with their software, which is one of the reasons it functions so well. By releasing the software for all x86 components they will hit obstacles such as their software not being compatible with many home users current hardware which will present many problems and make MAC OS out to look much less stable and efficient making developers less inclined to make software for them.By doing that they would taking a huge risk. There is most likely much more to their decisions then this but this is among one the biggest and most apparent and unless they can come to a point where they can make their OS more compatible than Microsoft's, i doubt we will see any movement toward them becoming a software company. Linux has been out for years and still has little support compared to windows and requires an advanced user to function well as would Mac OS on other hardware. I do feel that converting to intel hardware is a step in the direction we'd all like and compatiblility with all x86 machines could even be a future goal for all we know. However there is a long way to go and I don't think this is something we will ever see within the next year or two.

[Ouch]

I think theres a distinction between apple becoming a software company in the sense of writing apps for windows, vs actually supporting osx on non-apple hardware. IMO the latter is completely out of the question, people pay the premium for apple hardware for exactly the reasons ted describes and offering osx on any beige box a punter cares to purchase would dilute apples brand.

 

However what i think metrogirl was getting at was the possibility of apple releasing software such as it's iLife suite to windows - a far more likely concept given the recent news about yellow box. This would seem to fit in with their current stealth switch strategy. Convince the windows punters they want an ipod, show them how great itunes is, then offer them an affordable mac and you've got them hooked. Before you know it their ditching windows and buying powerbooks.

Edited December 24, 2005 by 0uch!p0tat0

[andreas-bw]

i would buy OS X really, but only if most of my application could work on it, that inclueds CSS!!!

 

even the nice installation said to me: throw windows away or hold on to it until OS X with Direct X support comes

[bjr1028]

you'll be waiting a while, DX isn't an open API. It's very dependant on windows calls.

[PGHammer]

First, what does EFI mean?

 

Second, don't you think that if Apple would sell their OS that the hardware department will lose money and finally will be closed?

 

Apple is a pretty solid software company that thinks it's a hardware company, despite that it's the operating system that separates Macs from PCs. Let's look simply at software that runs on OS X that has NO Windows equivalents (such as iLife's applications). iLife '06 runs on the new Intel Macs just fine, and that is especially true of GarageBand, which has no real equivalent on Windows. And GarageBand is an Apple-written application. How many MORE copies of iLife could Apple sell just to PC OS X licensees?

 

Let's face facts, folks; Apple has insisted on the stringent copy-protection schema simply to protect their hardware. When it comes to the rubber meeting the road, even Apple admits that Altivec and the G5 are doomed, even when it comes to their own desktops. The replacement for the current G5 Quad will likely be a multicore Intel EE-based box (a pair of dual-core EEs, which means FOUR cores chewing away on OS X 10.4.x (or even 10.5.x, if it is ready by the new Quad's introduction)). And it won't need the fancy watercooling that Apple HAS to use for the G5 Quad today. Jobs told all and sundry clear back at WWDC 2005 that the future is the Universal Binary, and told the developers to start cranking them out; all Jobs did at Macworld '06 was drive the point home with a sledgehammer by stating that the entire lineup *will* be changing over to Intel processors (specifically, Intel multicore processors). However, Apple is, in reality, facing the same dilemma Sun has faced when it comes to supporting non-Apple-sourced hardware: the reaction of the fiercely-loyal hardware base. And unlike the Sun SPARC hardware base, the Apple hardware base has every reason to feel betrayed. The chickens that Apple raised with the G4, G5, and AltiVec have *all* come home to roost with Apple's decision to go whole-hog to Intel processors (which Sun did NOT do with the similar, but not identical, decision to use AMD Opterons in some of their server boxes). What Jobs and Apple did was *far worse*, but in order to lessen the *absolutely justified* feeling of betrayal, they felt they had to toss the acolytes of the hardware base a rather meaty bone (hence their refusal to license OS X for beige-box PC use, despite that such would generate serious money for Apple AND the ISVs that develop software for OS X). And as long as they feel they have to do so (which will be decided by that very vocal fringe of hardware loyalists), Apple will continue to balk at licensing OS X for beige-box non-Apple hardware.

[PGHammer]

I really don't think Steve Jobs would go that route. His approach has always been to put out a quality product, one that looks great and functions well and efficiently. The Mac software is no doubt better than windows in terms of ease of use and simplicity and by not having to support all the hardware out there they have been able to rest well assured that their hardware integrates perfectly with their software, which is one of the reasons it functions so well. By releasing the software for all x86 components they will hit obstacles such as their software not being compatible with many home users current hardware which will present many problems and make MAC OS out to look much less stable and efficient making developers less inclined to make software for them.By doing that they would taking a huge risk. There is most likely much more to their decisions then this but this is among one the biggest and most apparent and unless they can come to a point where they can make their OS more compatible than Microsoft's, i doubt we will see any movement toward them becoming a software company. Linux has been out for years and still has little support compared to windows and requires an advanced user to function well as would Mac OS on other hardware. I do feel that converting to intel hardware is a step in the direction we'd all like and compatiblility with all x86 machines could even be a future goal for all we know. However there is a long way to go and I don't think this is something we will ever see within the next year or two.

 

The hardware support when it comes to *beige box* PCs is not as lacking as you would think, even when compared to Windows support on the same boxes. With a few judicious hacks that Apple could rather easily do itself (practically *every* hack that has been done with Tiger to run on *beige box* PCs today has been documented with loving and even nitpicky detail, and could easily be copied or reverse-engineered by Apple if they so chose), OS X could actually support *all* the hardware Windows does today. Even non-Intel processors. (You can run a hacked version of Tiger for x86 on AthlonXPs and Athlon64s today, and that is a processor platform Apple never even considered.) The biggest issue prospective switchers face today is one that is commonplace when it comes to Linux (and likely one that would be tackled the same way): hardware that needs customized .kexts (driver support in Linuxland). (This is, in fact, being done in the hacker community.) The distance that OS X needs to go toward full support is less than that required by Linux, even though Linux is older than OS X and more is known about how Linux drivers work than is the case with .kexts in OS X. It could even be used to grow the OS X peripheral base (how many non-Mac USB peripherals would gladly find a home attached to Intel-driven Macs, given proper driver support?).

[PGHammer]

I think this should be one of those thread topics that just gets insta-closed. It'd be nice, but it isn't really feasible or financially smart for them. (this topic comes up constantly)

 

Feasible? It's *very* feasible. (Considering that OS X itself started from processor-neutral Darwin, it's not only feasible, but easily *doable*. And, as Jobs himself made plain, it's been true of *every* version of OS X, back from Day One. So the *non-feasibility* argument Jobs himself rendered moot.) As to whether it's financially smart, that depends on whether the *perceived impact* that a hardware-neutral OS X would have on the retail software market matches the fears of the Apple Acolytes (that group of the Apple user base that killed off legitimate Apple clones and wants no repeat of the experience). In my own opinion, the sheer size of the target hardware marketplace would render their fears largely irrelevant. Why? Most of the target audience would NOT be running OS X as a primary or sole operating system (at least at first). They would be running OS X as a secondary (or even tertiary) operating system, alongside Windows (and/or Linux and/or another alternative operating system such as Solaris), largely due to applications which are not present on the primary operating system of choice (such as iLife's GarageBand, or iDVD). Result: not only would Apple gain additional operating-system sales (larger by a factor of three or even four than sales of the operating system with Apple hardware), but OS X *application* sales would also explode, mostly by the same amount. (Remember, iLife is written, and sold by, Apple itself; hence all the additional revenues from increased sales of iLife would come back to Apple. So Apple would only gain in this area. And there is no equivalent to iLife for any other operating system.) Secondly, how much of Apple's revenue comes STRICTLY from Apple Mac hardware, as opposed to software sold WITH that hardware? (.mac is a *service*, not an application, and you don't need .mac to run Mail, yet .mac is bundled as a trial application with iLife. The same is true of iWeb; while iWeb is integrated heavily with .mac, why wouldn't iWeb work with other hosting services, just as Mail works with POP3 and IMAP servers today?)

[cyrana]

yeah yeah its so feasible. This topic comes up every month and has for the last like 10 years. How is this going to be any different than it was the 1st time they had clones?

[INFNITE]

this is not like clones because they use standard hardware now. x86 compatible processors can run OS X if proper drivers are written. People can install OS X on a Sony Vaio if they want to, or a Dell or Gateway, or a machine they built themselves. This is very different from the clones when Apple was still using an architecture different from the rest of the PC world. It's totally different.

[Metrogirl]

This has been a great topic - it's had lots of worthy input and some great ideas. However, it's had its day. This is a dead topic. It is pushing up the daisies. It is time for it to join the great choir eternal etc. (apologies if you've never seen Monty Python). I'm closing it to further discussion because there really isn't much more to be said here - you can read it all in the thread already. If anyone really objects to this, you can always start a new thread - but with something really fresh, please.