Would you pay?

[DJDecay]

Hi All, I'm new to the board.

 

Most of you have experience building Hackintoshes, I've just finished mine on a Shuttle XPC using Jas images.

 

With most of you and me the question is Looming, What side will Apple take with regards to the OSx86 community.

I'm sure they are tracking that they're selling an in-ordinate amount of Keyboards and Mighty Mice for some odd reason.

But the real question is.

 

Would you pay for OS X (Tiger or Leopard) that would be free from TPM to run on you Intel/AMD PC Workstation?

If so, how much?

 

If you had it, would you buy more software from Apple, like Final Cut, Aperature, Remote Desktop?

 

I would pay $300USD for a Tiger Intel Kit that did not require Apple Only Hardware.

Edited March 17, 2007 by DJDecay

[ulyanov77]

i would actually pay for the support of hardware and the whole package, but the point is, is that apple will never do it...

[DJDecay]

i would actually pay for the support of hardware and the whole package, but the point is, is that apple will never do it...

 

But then they'll settle up for what SGI did to themselves. Even Sun Microsystems recognizes the importance of being supported on many hardware platforms other than it's own. If people can run Windows on a PC_Mac, the reverse _should_ be true. Otherwise the next "Killer App" will make all Mac owners install Windows for $300-$500.

[ulyanov77]

but the thing is, even though os x can run on pc and windows can run on mac, both of these aren't widespread and only make up a small niche of computer users.. apple is a hardware company, they don't want you to run os x on a pc because they will lose profit from no hardware sold; windows, however, could care less what you run their software on since they have no hardware to sell.

[FUKKU]

I'd pay $300-400 for a Leopard/iWork/iLife bundle for x86 that didn't include support. I know it'll never happen but I can dream...

[d3p0]

If you can't afford a real mac, apple doesn't want your business.

[glassJAw]

It would have to be 400 or so dollars since Apple would have to make profit somewhere.

[mac-mini]

just to let you know the PPC version of OS X is $130

[Schwinn555]

Looks like in the pole your saying Tiger PPC sells for $200.00 . Retail price is $129.00 and often sells for a bit less. I paid $99.00 @ Fry's some time back. Even with Tax it's shouldn't be $200.00 and lucky me I live in a no sales Tax state (Oregon)

[gtsmith]

All I can say is my 8 day experience with osx86 convinced me to go out and buy a mac, which I did yesterday. I think Apple ought to release a sample version (similar to a LiveCD of Linux) of osx that works on PCs that is set to timeout after say, 30 days. Include a coupon for 10-15% off a purchase of a new mac. I believe their sales would go through the roof. I turned two of my die-hard windows friends on to this site, both played with OSX86, both are buying macs this week as a result. Come on, that's a 100 percent turnover rate. I have two more buddies that are going to give it a try soon as well.

[Alessandro17]

All I can say is my 8 day experience with osx86 convinced me to go out and buy a mac, which I did yesterday. I think Apple ought to release a sample version (similar to a LiveCD of Linux) of osx that works on PCs that is set to timeout after say, 30 days. Include a coupon for 10-15% off a purchase of a new mac. I believe their sales would go through the roof. I turned two of my die-hard windows friends on to this site, both played with OSX86, both are buying macs this week as a result. Come on, that's a 100 percent turnover rate. I have two more buddies that are going to give it a try soon as well.

 

That must be one of the reasons why (normally) they live this site alone.

There are many more reasons I can think of, though.

[jgrimes80]

just to let you know the PPC version of OS X is $130

 

But to run OSX, theoretically, you've purchased a Mac. I doubt the $130 price tag yields much of a margin, if any, at all. AND since you've purchased a Mac, you've already got one version of the OS. So technically, it'd be an "upgrade."

 

Similarly, Microsoft is currently selling the Xbox for a loss in hopes to make up for it with game sales.

[cringemaster]

I would pay about 200 for a TPM free copy, but that trial idea is a great one.

[gloria]

Looks like others, feel the same way I do

[glassJAw]

You are wrong about Microsoft loosing money on their consoles. They are making profits on them now.

[DJDecay]

The price was worked out as if new/box. Apple only sells upgrades to OEM installs. Prices are hiked for a reason. Just like the price difference between XP Oem and XP Retail Box.

 

 

 

but the thing is, even though os x can run on pc and windows can run on mac, both of these aren't widespread and only make up a small niche of computer users.. apple is a hardware company, they don't want you to run os x on a pc because they will lose profit from no hardware sold; windows, however, could care less what you run their software on since they have no hardware to sell.

 

This is exactly what I hear from the apple world once in a while, I think some journalist for ZDNet coined this line of thinking,

or some other online IT mag. It simply is not true.

 

Apple would _KILL_ to have the market share of microsoft, hardware or not,

Apple would _KILL_ to have their stock value, hardware/software what-ever ware, Apple computers would love this kind of money.

 

On the other hand Microsoft would _KILL_ if it had as a successful portable music player.

 

Apple's core business, and key to it's finanical strength is the iPod and iTunes, this is why iTunes ships as a "core/required" part

of the OS X 10.4 operating system as oppsed to (cough) Internet Explorer shipping with Windows 98 back in the day.

 

Apples bread-and-butter hardware sales have been increasing, but the rapid shot-in-the-arm was always the iPod.

iPod is hardware so many equate it to "hardware" = "core profit"

 

Since we're talking, a legit, in the wild OS X for P.C. here, the profits Apple would/could make from their "Superior" operating system

would _DWARF_ what they would loose in sales of aluminum/white Intel powered boxes. That they would still sell to the purists, and studio/video professionals that don't want to risk "incompatibility".

 

I think the above statement (and I'm not trying to sound stand-offish) you make is very repetative, and has been regurgitated for quite some time.

 

As said before, SGI had the most _ideal_ synergy of hardware/software, they invented OpenGL and 90% of holywood EFX used to be done in Alias/Wavefront a software company that Autodesk bought up recently (they used to put out Power Animator and Maya). SGI also owned Cray Supercomputers, the fastest computers on the planet. SGI computers had at the time the most revolutionary GUI called 4Dwm. SGI finaly decidd to drop the RISC archetecture and move to CISC (Intel) architecture, and put out Intel based workstations (that ran NT, and not Irix though...)

 

SGI was de-listed from NYSE. Most of SGI's UNIX power was adopted to linux (see Autodesk Smoke/Fire color correction software, Mokey tracking software) / Most of SGI's inventive creative products were moved to the Mac/XP platforms.

 

Apples story sounds kinda Similar.

[superkona]

My Idea - OSX for 50 dollars, Apple DONATES HALF of the money to charities.

 

40 million copies sold puts 1 billion in Apple's pocket and 1 billion to charity.

 

Sell OSX with NO SUPPORT - just free updates and some .mac trial period + little bit of itunes credit.

 

Let 3rd parties offer support. If you want supported OSX, BUY A MAC. If you want a solid OS that runs of specific hardware, give OSX a run and help Save The World while you are at it.

 

How many kids would the $$ help feed/educate/immunize?

[Ferret-Simpson]

Supercona that's a flat out ridiculous idea. You're forgetting software development costs, and you're forgetting that Apple are a capitalist corporation - They Don't Care About Dying Children. Even if every single employee cared, which most of them do - It's not about the employee it's the company itself. Giving away half your profits would not sell with shareholders.

 

The SGI/Apple comparison is also ridiculous.

 

SGI machines cost a factor of ten above Wintel PC's, server and workstation alike.

Apple machines are more expensive by a factor of two at the low end (hard specs alone) at the most, and have been demonstrated cheaper at the high end, than comparable workstations.

 

SGI's intel workstations were an additional product line, not a replacement to their core system. All Apple have done is to increase product power and compatibility. They STILL RUN OS X. SGI's intel boxes did not run Irix.

 

Have a look at eBay. An SGI o2 at 300mhz costs more, often than a Mac Mini at 2x1.8ghz. The SGI business sector was far narrower than that of Apple - which have absorbed that sector into their business.

 

Making a comparison with Apple is like making a comparison with Amiga or Acorn. There is no real ground for argument.

[superkona]

think different

[Ferret-Simpson]

Think realistic. :/

 

[Vertigo50]

I'm sure they are tracking that they're selling an in-ordinate amount of Keyboards and Mighty Mice for some odd reason.

 

Who in God's name would CHOOSE to use a Mighty Mouse if they weren't given one with the computer? I would NEVER use any of Apple's mice even if I did have a Mac.

[jgrimes80]

Who in God's name would CHOOSE to use a Mighty Mouse if they weren't given one with the computer? I would NEVER use any of Apple's mice even if I did have a Mac.

 

As long as it's got a "tail" the quality is certianly there...

 

but I'll stick with logitech...

[naquaada]

I would pay about 150 Eur (actually 200.35 US$) for an OSX86 package, Install DVD and maybe manuals would be enough. The only important thing is that it's official and I can use it legally.

[Rufus T. Firefly]

Like others have said; it'll never happen.

 

Apple SHOULD consider it though. Like gtsmith, I myself have OSx86 installed and (currently) using for all aspects of computing. I have some change saved up and was really thinking of getting a full fledged Macintosh. I'd could still run Windows on it and hell,.. if I can't i'd have a Windows PC and an Apple.

 

Point is: After having tried OSx86 I'm in love with Mac's now. I want one and I'll get one eventually.

 

side question: What the hell are they so expensive? You could essentially build one for less then 1k

[naquaada]

Why are Apple's computers so expensive? Good question. Maybe 'cause Apples strategy was 'selling computers for the classes, not for the masses'.

 

The Apple II was a big success, but the Lisa was too expensive (about 10.000 USD in 1983) and the machine was maybe to innovative at this time. The later introduced Macintosh was a bit cheaper and sold very well. But later they tried to reach the masses, f.e. with the new colorful iMac and the iPod. But if you compare the price of an iPod to a normal MP3-player the price is still to high. What I don't like on iPods is the fact that they have no memory card slot and they need a special accu. So they aren't expandable and you can't go in a simple store to by a new AAA-sized battery if your iPod runs out of power when you're away from home.

 

To compare: Commodore's strategy was 'selling computers for the masses, not for the classes'. They kept it nearly all the time and it worked: the C=64 was the best-selling computer ever and the Amiga 500 and 1200 was also sold very well. Their main problem was the lousy management and a bad marketing strategy. Their innvoative product, the CDTV, was the world's first multimedia player for home use. They had it already in the 90's, but only since a few years people want to have a PC in the living-room. The world wasn't ready for it, like in 1983 for the Apple Lisa.

 

Fact is that the most better equipped Apple computers are much too expensive for the common people, so they will buy a PC. Here in Germany are some discouters which sell great equipped PCs in living-room quality (very quiet), with remote control, TV/SAT-Tuner, display and a lot of more features for less than 800 Euro sometimes. But these things all now have Vista preinstalled, and there are a lot of people who don't like it. If these things could be equipped with an OSx86, this would be great. The problem is, I asked in several Mac-forums, the most original Mac users don't want to have running OS X on non-Apple hardware. Not very nice.

 

I don't know if there is a chance to get an official OSx86 from Apple. One reason for the hope of getting it is the behaviour of Apple to the OSx86 community. Apple is such a big company which has so much power and enough possibilites to ban f.e. this site. But they aren't doing it. There were no rumors of someone getting busted by Apple 'cause he was using OSx86. Are we too unimportant for Apple? Or are we part of an big beta-testing and a bunch of free programmers? The sourcecode of the 8.8.1 kernal was free to download for some time. It was a (very short) matter of time that it was fixed to run on OSx86 machines. Leopard still uses mach_kernel. They could have used a completely new kernal to make it impossible to let it run on normal x86-based machines. And I think Intel would be very angry if Apple would try to support AMD processors. Let's see what happens in the next time.

 

GreetinX from the Other Side!