Great New Install Guide and OSX Review

[jdxxx]

I just ran across this site: http://www.macadell.com

 

There is a "must read", if a little long, article. Go to the punch-line:

http://macadell.com/macadell3.html#Apple_at_the_River

 

And a very good (and simple) install guide:

http://macadell.com/macadell4.html

 

Bottom-line argument is that Apple could double the company's value by releasing OS X "for Everyone". It made sense to me.

[quixos]

unfortunately Steve Jobs bottom line is maintaining control. he's no longer in it for the money, if he ever was.

 

don't expect logical arguments for mere profit to sway him. he's brilliant, he's a maniac, and apple is HIS game.

 

just making conversation.

[jdxxx]

Job's does not own Apple however. Stockholders do, and they have a Board of Directors. So far, Steven has been making both groups happy.

 

But perhaps OSX for everyone would make them even MORE happy -- happy stockholders are, after all, richer stockholders.

[FickleFlame]

I agree with quixos, Steve Jobs is the kind of guy who wants to create something unique and untainted by the rest of the world. When you shell out $2500 for a G5, your not paying for hardware, your paying for his Vision.

[fotpunk]

Bottom-line argument is that Apple could double the company's value by releasing OS X "for Everyone". It made sense to me.

 

It may make sense to you, but it won't make to Apple.

 

Once upon a time, Apple thought it could increase the company's value by licensing its hardware so that "everyone" could afford the "Apple experience." Instead, it lost money as its licensees made cheaper and more affordable boxes. It nearly destroyed the company.

 

So by releasing OS X "for Everyone", it would promptly:

 

1. Destroy Apple's hardware sales, because who'd buy an Apple if you could get a PC for cheaper? Would you buy an Apple? Heck no...

2. Create a customer support nightmare as people call to complain why OS X doesn't work on a seemingly infinite number of pimp-my-PC configurations (Do you support my video card Apple? What about my ethernet card? No? Then you suck Apple! Wah!)

3. Awaken the beast that is Microsoft, who would summaraily create Vista software to disable OS X on any machine that has Vista installed, then threaten to destroy any PC vendor who dares ship OS X rather than Vista on its machines. Oh, and cancel all software development (i.e. Office) on the Mac.

4. Cause Apple to go bankrupt because of 1-3.

 

So if you think OS X for everyone would make Apple and its shareholders happy … no way.

 

EDIT: And I can tell you now that Apple would never give up its miniscule hardware market share just to make easy money on the OS … because of 2 and 3 above. It would rather build its hardware AND OS market share by keeping OS X on Apple computers.

[Urbz]

the current market isn't ready for the release of the OS on all PCs. It just isn't.

Maybe, if things really take off, in a few years.

But still, i think they would just license it to like dell and hp, making sure they co-operate hardware-wise, to keep tight control.

and no, i dont think the same would happen as the licensing fiasco.

[Metrogirl]

One thing that seems to escape everyone is that we, the OSx86 pirates (to put it bluntly) are, and probably always will be, a tiny minority. We shouldn't overestimate our own importance. We're a barely significant blot on Apple's nice clean landscape. Mr and Mrs Joe America won't know how to get a torrent, won't have a clue what a kext is, won't want to even install something, so the current pirated OSX isn't really a big issue to Apple. Mr and Mrs Average want to buy a machine with an operating system pre-installed, and most of them don't give a tinker's cuss if it's Windows, OSX or AOL as long as it does email and plays Solitaire. Half of the people that I know with a home computer are only vaguely aware it's got a Microsoft product on it. Would they go and buy OSX if it was on the shelf in Circuit City? I doubt it. And they definitely won't be trying to load a dodgy version, even if they had the first inkling of where to get it.

 

To the point - those people will use whatever is on their machines when they buy them. Apple would have an uphill struggle persuading OEMs to pre-install OSX rather than Windows (consider the re-training for the cretins who put the things together today and then try to support them) so there's a whole new ballgame they'd have to get into if they made OSX available for generic hardware. I just thought I'd throw that perspective into the equation.

[anomaly]

True true true, Apple and Jobs have always been governed by principals other than of profit and revenue; money has never made their world go round (but it did almost stop it a few times lol). Having said that I'd gladly pay for OSX for my custom built PC.

[fotpunk]

But still, i think they would just license it to like dell and hp, making sure they co-operate hardware-wise, to keep tight control.

 

Dell? A very long, very doubtful shot. HP? Never again. HP tried hardware licensing with the iPod, and it was a disaster precisely because of Apple's tight control.

 

And Metrogirl is right-on, but I think OSx86 pirates are a bigger "blip" on Apple's radar ("blot" sounds so negative) despite being a tiny minority, because OSx86 pirates are:

 

* Security testing for Leopard whether they realize it or not

* Endowing on OS X some sort of cool "forbidden fruit" rep that subsequently raises interest among the general public about Apple (if people are taking the trouble to hack it, it must be good) - you can't buy that type of marketing

* Going to be among the most knowledgable people able to opine on (hacked) OS X vs. Vista, and therefore the most influential people to sway others to switch (or not switch) operating systems

[R. Bear Helms]

It's the media buzz about OS x86 that is making these efforts an issue with Apple. When Wired and Slashdot are publishing articles about how OS X is running on cheaper PC platforms, in storms the people asking where's the install disc? Where's the driver for wazoowidget?

 

The sensationalism doesn't fit the reality. And when these headline makers realize they've giving more thunder to what is really just a tiny spark, we may finally lose media focus.

 

I think Darwine may have been a minor media circus in its early days, too... and Wine for Linux.

 

All these things have something in common: They require quite a lot of hacker-level skill to get working AT ALL, and none of them work so well you can totally do without the REAL product they are trying to emulate.

 

Emulate is a word that has changed meaning. It used to mean IMPROVE UPON an imitation, nowadays as a technical term it means to find a gimpy way to somehow manage a few basic functions of the original

[Metrogirl]

Much as I hate to disagree with you, R Bear Helms, I think your interpretation of Emulate is flawed, at least from a British English perspective. Here's the Oxford English Dictionary definition:

 

[jdxxx]

Like many other people around here who "know something" about computers, I am continually consulting with friends who are having system problems they do not understand. They usually think they "have a virus", not knowing exactly what that means other than their system is sick. And of course, many people have heard the hype about Apple OS X "not having any viruses".

 

Fourteen million people picked up an iPod last year, and they for the most part love those little gadgets with the Apple logo. They use iTunes, and they are continually exposed to the Apple logos on the site. They are aware of the alternative offered by OS X, and increasingly willing to give it a try.

 

Published analysis of the iMac 17" suggests raw production costs of ths system run Apple about $880. Retail price is $1299. Amazon.com is selling it at $1159 (with rebate). Apple is clearing about $150 on these systems, not counting Advertising and support costs.

 

Apple could make about $90 per installed OS on OEM and about $120 a box on retail OSX sales (at a list of $189). The article at macadell.com (what ever its motives are) suggests Apple might see sales of 10 million copies a year. That number sounds reasonable. When people buy a home Dell system, they click lots of configuration choice boxes. Given a choice "Apple OS" or "Windows OS", many users would click Apple. (Dell shipped 10 million of those boxes last quarter, all with Win.)

 

Could they sell that OSX software? Yes. Lots of it. The install of a hacked 8F1111 (from a prepared DVD) is faster and easier than a new Windows install -- 25 min versus 45 min, and a cleaner interface. How many Win users do you know who have been faced with a reinstall? Lots. How many might have just tried to drop an OSX install in the drive instead of the Win disk? Again, if it were available, I suspect many would give it a try.

 

Will Apple sell OSX as OS software? Probably not, at least not for a couple of years. But they could. Driver and hardware support? With $100 million in development budget, 99% of the Intel and AMD systems could be supported natively by OSX. Take a look at a little Linux company like Xandros. Their debian linux installs flawlessly on most boxes, automatically sets up a dual boot partition and lilo boot manager, sets up the samba network automatically, recognizes the wireless devices and network.... With 10 times the development budget, Apple could have OSX doing the same.

 

I think the spread of illicit boxes running OSX, though a small "fringe" activity, will push the momentum for an genuine OSX release. There are over 100,000 install version disk downloads logged on that "Swedish" bittorrent site. Obviously, there is interest. As one user who is tied to Windows by the fact I do Visual Studios app development, I would gladly pay $200 for a licensed version of OSX to dual (or in my case, triple) boot.

[-.-]

IMO, it would not do Apple any favors to ever have a name association with Dell, which to some is an extremely undesirable product at the very bottom alongside other undesirables such as Compaq and HP. I have an Apple Powerbook and like the product enough to recomend it to others. I once had the misfortune of owning a Compaq, a peice of {censored}, and in much the same way that i frequently tell people to buy a Powerbook, you'll love it, I was frequently telling people that if you buy a Compaq you'll wish you hadn't, and recently there appears to be lots of folks out there saying that about Dell. I have heard just as many say it about HP, but at the same time many saying they like HP, like a cult or something. I don't mean to inflame or offend any Dell or Compaq owners, it is just a fact that many people think of them as undesirable {censored}. However, I do think it would be financialy viable for Apple to sell OS X that works on any computer, just not havng a close associtaion with other computer makers of dubious reputations, the Intel relationship works, the speculated Dell relationship would not work, it would dimminish Apple rather than increase it's stature.