Darwin is dead.

[A Nonny Moose]

"Go and buy a Mac".

No. I will look into a buying a G4 Quicksilver PowerMac on ebay before I buy a new Intel Mac. You missed option 3:

 

3) Apple (Steve Jobs) gets his head out of his ass and realizes his "buddy" Bill Gates is richer than anybody cause he focussed on software and not hardware. Thus Apple goes software.

 

I mean it is SO STUPID for Jobs to keep on about hardware when he is using hardware that everybody else is using. When it was PPC, then it was different. Now? He is making a fool of himself. If Apple went pure software with OS X, iLife, iWork, iTunes, Final Cut Pro, etc. they would do well (of Course some hardware like the iPod and iSight) People could go to Walmart (yes Wally World), Target, Bestbuy, etc. and buy OS X. Then after they put it on their machine and see how much better it is, there would be competition! Duh. Another things about OS X going "open": more drivers and apps. When it is available to install on any x86 machine that meets some spec requirements, then a company like say Nvidia could just install it and try to develop for it. Why should companies like Nvidia buy Macs just to devleop for OS X? They shouldn't. OS X going mainstream would be awesome but Jobs is to stupid to see it.

 

I love it when people go overboard based on only the last sentence.

 

So let's say Apple does decide to shoot itself in the foot by selling OSX86. At $129, it will present itself with a significantly smaller profit margin that the cost of buying a new Mac. In order to stay afloat, Apple has to either:

 

1. Sell a hell of a lot of those disks, which won't happen. People seem to enjoy their Windows insecurity blanket and won't switch no matter how much the minority (that us, guys) say it's better. OR

 

2. Increase price, which in turn raises supply but lowers demand (holding all other things constant).

[netzen7]

Well, I guess my point is that I think enough would give up windows. Organizations are desperate to break from the M$ grip. Linux is the only other option right now, IMO. . .and the desktop, while better every day, it isn't to the polish necessary. Give me an OS alternative, something I can license to run on my existing Intel infrastructure, something proven and backed by a fortune 500 company, I'm interested!. Expect me to buy the whole machine. . .too much to get started, even if they "dual boot" that other OS that I wish I wasn't chained to.

 

And, well, what good is the open kernel with a closed architecture? So far, that is what we have. MacPro is the defining moment in my mind as to how this will unfold.

[GreyWolf]

My apologies for using the term "shut up" ... ... perhaps next time I'll riddle my post with less pedestrian language; here's a clue, GROW UP. Just for you; It's apples and oranges, stop comparing them

 

Laptops, that's all I own. Click I'm not doubting that the computers can be sold cheaper, I'm sure everything can had for cheaper. Last I checked, Apple makes between 20-30% margins on their hardware. However, they make very little margins on their OS sales, iPods, but you're buying more than hardware... if you've used it you'd know... software, insanely great support (A+), regular updates are released, big ones every 6 months, little one everywhere else. It's inflated price is the cost of a superior OS, customer service, and updates. (it all cost money)

 

Here's a story of insanely great support... A few years back, I was working for a VAR that had a number of service contracts with local design firms. One of our clients brought in a blue and white Power Mac that was behaving bizarrely. Mind you, the company and all employees were Apple Service certified. We couldn't figure out what was causing the Mac's odd behavior. We blew the OS away and reinstalled, it still would hang and get strange bombs. Ordered new processor. No. New drives? No. New RAM? No. New power supply? Nope. Took everything out of the case: it wasn't the problem... We used up one of our VERY pricey support incidents. Apple suggested swapping the processor. We told them that we had already replaced EVERYTHING and were recommending the client return the unit to Apple for replacement. They absolutely REFUSED to repair or replace the machine. They kept demanding we repeatedly order and replace parts.

 

And every actively used operating system is routinely updated for free. Nobody would use them if you had to pay for security updates and bug fixes.

 

There is no way OSX can be sold as is for $200... (profitably) everyone who buy this already purchased a previous edition OS for Apple and already have a Mac. It's more like 200 for an upgrade... if it comes out, I seriously doubt it's goin to be cheap. I don't forsee OSX becoming licensed EVER. Apple/Jobs have vowed to keep it proprietary. I'm not saying that it wouldn't stimulate some serious growth for the company but it would certain be to their benefit to grow stable holding on to the reins.

 

What?! There's know way OSX could go for $200? See www.apple.com/macosx... 5-client family pack: $199.00. NEW, not upgrade.

 

Intel; I'm saying the benefits of a fully supported OSX and almost fully supported XP make these machines priceless in my book. Well worth the cost. Mac's dual boot in case you haven't heard.

 

You wouldn't have any complaints if it was cheaper... if it's not worth your pocketbook go somewhere else. You don't think they're are any highly qualified analysts working for Apple to decide "is this good for the company?" To say Apple is ignorant for not realizing the potential market for licensing their OS... Take a look at Microsoft today; huge, a joke in terms of PLC, and poor quality products overall. I'd say they've had a good decade and a half, but it's future is very shaky.

 

Umm... Apple has never been known for being brightest pixel on the screen...

Moving Aqua to the x86 platform is the brightest thing they've ever done, but tying it to a hash key in a secure flash chip pretty much cancels it out in my opinion. What a waste of an opportunity to get out of the cutthroat low-profit margin hardware manufacuring and support business. Look how many copies of Windows have been sold. Microsoft only has to worry about hardware support for their peripherals. And their support for their operating systems and applications is excellent. You can even get your money back for paid support if it turns out the problem is on their end. (Note this is not inviolable, but I have never been charged for issues that turned out to be Windows or Office bugs.)

[supermus]

There are many reasons that software has been so profitable for Microsoft. One is that they sell licenses in bulk, so they can make very little profit on an individual unit, at least when they sell to Dell and HP. Needless to say, this would be difficult for Apple to manage, as they would have to convince Dell and HP to ship with Mac OS installed, and that would be a large risk for Dell and HP, at least until retail Mac OS became popular enough to justify it.

 

As for profiting from retail software sales, it would require the profit gouging that Microsoft uses with its retail Windows sales. Software retail can be a high-margin business, but considering the insane profits Apple makes on its hardware sales, I would wager that selling Mac OS would not draw higher margins than selling computers. Now, as many have stated in that past, Apple is rather fond of profit gouging (though I suppose it could just as well be called supply and demand, the basis of our economic system). Thus, it seems on the surface that retail software could be a good fit for Apple.

 

However, I have found that part of the reason my experience using Apple's software has been so enjoyable is that they are not a software company. Even though I am using a stolen version of Mac OS, they hassle me less than Microsoft does when I am using a genuine version of Windows. There is no forced registration, or activation, to ensure that I am using a genuine verison of Mac OS. If Apple borrowed Microsoft's model, they might also have to borrow Microsoft's emphasis on backward compatibility, which prevents Windows from undergoing either the evolution or the revolution it needs right now. Furthermore, tailoring software to fit hardware allows Apple to create a holistic experience, which is one of the things that makes Mac users as devoted as they tend to be. I know that we all have been having a jolly good time with our hacked PCs, but it does (from my experience) pale in comparison to using an actual Mac.

 

The people sneering at Apple's business model of packaging generic parts in shiny cases remind me of an article I read once explaining why the iPod became such a phenomenon: they made pressing a button feel good. They made scrolling feel like a natural and wonderful experience. Similarly, Apple has made a computer as easy to use as a toaster, from a hardware standpoint. They have made computers *silent* (neglecting all the whining about whining, which I suspect is just a reaction to how quiet the MacBook Pro is to begin with). They fit a fairly impressive desktop computer into a flatscreen monitor. To overclocking enthusiasts like us, that might not mean much, but it is a selling point for normal people. That is Apple's business model, and us yelling at them and beating the floor crying about how we want to run Mac OS on our Dells is not going to change the business model that saved Apple from destruction when Steve returned to Apple.

[deltatux]

I dun think you can put an operating system or any code back to proprietary after you release it to the public.

 

deltatux

[sandmanfvrga]

I love it when people go overboard based on only the last sentence.

 

So let's say Apple does decide to shoot itself in the foot by selling OSX86. At $129, it will present itself with a significantly smaller profit margin that the cost of buying a new Mac. In order to stay afloat, Apple has to either:

 

1. Sell a hell of a lot of those disks, which won't happen. People seem to enjoy their Windows insecurity blanket and won't switch no matter how much the minority (that us, guys) say it's better. OR

 

2. Increase price, which in turn raises supply but lowers demand (holding all other things constant).

 

 

 

No offense man, but why do you and many others think Apple will "shoot themselves in the foot"? I was on the PearPC forum last year when I was trying that and I just heard the most pathetic whining from Mac owners about the Intel switch. Now look, it is going great. Not perfect, but the machines are very powerful and can dual boot XP.

 

Enough whining. Have you not thought of this: say OS X is on the shelves. Mac fans that don't buy Mac hardware (there are alot of us) put it on their x86 machines. THEN they show all their friends. Tell them they don't have to buy anything but the OS. People can see OS X being ran everywhere. They see those with HP, Compaq, Dell, etc laptops and desktop running OS X and not needing Windows. That would switch alot of people. Plus being able to KEEP Windows would be the great thing.

 

I think alot you people don't want things to be tried and Apple take off cause you want to stay apart of some small "click" and feel great you have a Mac. Stupid. Do you guys not want OS X to be widely accepted and Apple succeed?

[jgrimes80]

I don't think anyone is contesting the fact that there would be an explosive OSX market growth...

 

It's more a matter of keeping things proprietary... it comes down to the way people see things.

 

Windows Xp is much better than most make it out to be, the only time things go haywire is with (poor/new) custom configuration attempts or not listening to the "don't" of the internet. I wouldn't think Apple would want the performance reputation of OSX to be tainted with extremely poor hardware or poor hardware retailers in general trying to get the absolute cheapest computer out the door. I know many complain about the hardware available for MAC (not the greastest) but it's still much better than what's found in your cheap-o Dell/Gateway etc.

 

Most higher end PCs work flawlessly great (REALLY GREAT), the cheap ones suck... but everyone has the cheap ones. If Apple could keep OSX off the really cheap hardware, I could see them taking the jump. But that's not likely.

 

I ask someone to show me a Mac that sucks...??? hence the "expense."

 

As far as the ultimate marketing tactic I'd like to see Apple do... cut margins and move more inventory <- this is the key. More inventory in the consumers hands will increase market share... MAcs will be cheaper, and provide a little more incentive for the already GREAT OSX developers, and of course, repeat customers.

 

(I hope that makes sense)

[sandmanfvrga]

It makes sense, but Windows does have alot of issues. It usually takes Microsoft a long time to get one of their OS's working right. Plus all the security patches and outrageous patches to protect yourself when Micorsoft should have made Windows free of those holes. yes OS X has problems, but "works" better than Windows.

 

I understand having OS X on {censored} hardware could cause issues, but look now. Apple is releasing "{censored}" hardware. Chipping black Macbooks, Macbook Pros that overheat and make noise. So really, that is already happening.

 

I could see one of these two things:

 

1) Apple control what hardware OS X can support. Example: no VIA or cheap motherboards. Must be EFI. That makes sense and you have to buy certain drives that meet OS X specs.

 

2) Apple, ie Steve Jobs, quit charging so much for the damn Macs. I mean the Mac Mini is the only reasonable Mac barring the 17 inch iMac. PowerMac G5's are rediculous and I guarantee the replacements will be right at or close to $1999 starting. Way to high for a tower and no monitor.

 

If Apple can do one of those two, then I would be happy. I probably would be happy to even with 2, even though I love to build my own. Say a new "PowerMac" with dual 64 bit processors starting at $1099 or something? That is reasonable. Maybe even cheaper versions.

[A Nonny Moose]

No offense man, but why do you and many others think Apple will "shoot themselves in the foot"? I was on the PearPC forum last year when I was trying that and I just heard the most pathetic whining from Mac owners about the Intel switch. Now look, it is going great. Not perfect, but the machines are very powerful and can dual boot XP.

 

I think alot you people don't want things to be tried and Apple take off cause you want to stay apart of some small "click" and feel great you have a Mac. Stupid. Do you guys not want OS X to be widely accepted and Apple succeed?

 

Apple succeeding involves a greater amount of profit, which comes from hardware sales (with a greater profit margin) as opposed to software sales. If you can't understand a profit/loss margin, then there is no sense in even trying to discuss this issue. While we all want Apple to succeed, opening up the OS won't work when the other 95% craves their Windows insecurity blanket.

 

If you don't believe me, look at the "explosion of Linux users" that was supposed to happen after the one trillionth MS scare. It didn't happen.

[Shimms]

I dun think you can put an operating system or any code back to proprietary after you release it to the public.

 

deltatux

 

Why not?

[niteice]

I dun think you can put an operating system or any code back to proprietary after you release it to the public

Well, Apple can. Everything in Darwin closed-source currently is under the Apple Public Source License. It states that whoever owns the code may release it, but is under no obligation to. So, this is why we have a complete Darwin up to 8.3 (10.4.3), and then only portions afterwards.