What is Digg?Sponsored by Travelzoo
$52 and Up—Airlines Slash Fares On Peak Holiday Flights. view!
travelzoo.com - This year, waiting until the last minute is NOT the best strategy. See why.
131 Comments
- longzheng, on 10/12/2007, -3/+30I believe Apple is a hardware company. They make software to support their hardware, but not to sell software for a business. In reality, they sell hardware products, that are well supported by their software products.
And putting Mac OS X on non-Mac box will cause so many problems with the infinite combination of devices, something Apple hasn't dealt with, ever. - oiper, on 10/12/2007, -6/+22Exactly. One of the main reasons OS X works so well is the restricted set of hardware they deal with. Try to sell an OS X that's compatible with everything, and welcome to Windows stability.
- ksgant, on 10/12/2007, -7/+21Funny, just a little over a year ago people were saying "Macs using Intel processors? Not in a million years."
I've learned never say never when it comes to Apple now. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -6/+20Selling OSX seperate from the mac hardware platform would possibly be the death of Apple. Why buy an expensive mac when you can spend 1/2 to 2/3 the money and get a better specified PC thats fully upgradable?
Apple keeps on saying that its a hardware company (its software is there simply to sell hardware), releasing OSX for the PC is just a stupid supposition.
I used to enjoy what Cringley said, but this guy is even further off the rails than J C Dvorak.
Last week he was spouting some unsubstantiated and completely unverifyable rumours about gates and balmer discussing how to wrest allen's MS shares from his dead body, now hes using the same type of unverifyable sources to imply that apple is going to drop its main moneymakers and switch to being completely a software company.
Someone really needs to sort this jerk out! - sennmen, on 10/12/2007, -4/+17There are a few disputable statements made in this article, like, for example, "the only company that truly benefits from Boot Camp is Microsoft". Couldn't be farther from the truth. By making it easier to put Windows on a Mac, Apple is winning customers who were on the edge of buying one, but didn't want to miss out on some Windows applications.
Second of all, selling OS X apart from a machine, why would they do that? Would there really be that much revenue in that department for them to consider this move, seeing that hardware sales will probably drop? Apple is still a hardware company. - longzheng, on 10/12/2007, -5/+15"I'm so so SICK of this false argument. Everyone seems to forget about Linux. Linux has been ported to and works on just about every system out there with a staggering amount of hardware drivers....yet it's stability if first rate. It's stability is so great, that people often use it in comparison to Windows."
Most hardware still has miserable Linux support.
Windows, by far, has more support for hardware than any operating system. That's a fact. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -7/+17The end of their class? What do you mean by that? OSX is a great operating system. I'd love to have it on my PCs. The sweet glorious belly of unix with the nice lovable interface on top of it? Best of both worlds. My only concern would be with compatilbility with various sets of hardware (especially up to date hardware and bleeding edge) just like linux has severe problems with it.
And most of all, it would be an alternative for those who can't afford $3,200 for a powerbook. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -8/+17Even a broken clock is right twice a day.
Well, unless it is a 24-hour military clock. Then it's just right once a day. - spyres, on 10/12/2007, -4/+11So OS X is magically going to have drivers for all the windows hardware out there so it can run on a wide variety of generic pc boxen? I tend to doubt it.
- orbitalleader, on 10/12/2007, -11/+17Cringely has been pushing this line of bull for years now. He is living proof that if you throw enough s**t on the wall, some of it will stick.
This is lame. - teknotant, on 10/12/2007, -6/+11Where do you guys get this stuff? Just because the OS is not on an apple manufactured box has nothing to do with the quality of the software products they will put out. Apple’s selling point is the quality, look, and feel of its OS/Hardware. Now that an individual on a budget could possibly afford a “Mac”, Apple could losses its class? WTF man?
- daonlyfreez, on 10/12/2007, -8/+12Not in a million years, dream on...
- punchingjudy, on 10/12/2007, -7/+11Any PC? Pardon me whilst I scoff.
- Gnascher, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5Actually, it doesn't need to cover every possible hardware combination if they don't shoot at the 'down-market' consumer.
If they launch with support for a selection of popular and current hardware, the geek crowd will buy. Then, little by little ... people will start writing drivers for other "non-supported" hardware. and the hardware manufacturers will follow with "official versions". - Kazrog, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5I agree 100%. Anyone who suggests that Apple should release OS X for non-Apple hardware has no perspective on history. Apple allowed Mac clones in the mid 90s and it nearly killed them. Had it not been for Steve Jobs, who IMMEDIATELY killed the clone program upon his return to Apple, we wouldn't be talking about Apple today in anything other than a historical context.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -6/+10Not to mention that people about to buy a mac will buy a far cheaper generic PC and run OSX on that instead. Which would make apple more $$, selling a $1700 notebook with OSX installed, or selling OSX for PC and having the customer buy their own $1300 notebook from dell?
Its a no brainer, kind of like Cringely seems to be. - ross., on 10/12/2007, -7/+10"Not to mention that people about to buy a mac will buy a far cheaper generic PC and run OSX on that instead. Which would make apple more $$, selling a $1700 notebook with OSX installed, or selling OSX for PC and having the customer buy their own $1300 notebook from dell?
Its a no brainer, kind of like Cringely seems to be."
You're not looking at the broader picture. Sure there profit per customer is going to go MASSIVELY down, but their number of customers is going to suddenly sky rocket!
Bill Gates didn't become the richest man in the world selling keyboards and mouses. - johnjreiser, on 10/12/2007, -5/+8Consider OS X as having a hardware tax, just like how purchasing that Dell or any other name brand PC has the MS software tax.
- mancat, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3I'm using OSX on my Dell Optiplex GX620 right now. All the on-board hardware except for sound and ethernet worked out of the box. Seems that Apple isn't having too much trouble here.
- Gnascher, on 10/12/2007, -2/+5Drivers are software.
Software takes a developer and a reason to write it.
I guarantee you that if OS X for generic hardware comes down the pipe, drivers will be soon to follow.
If it launches with support for some of the more popular sound cards, vid cards etc ... interested parties will buy.
Several months later, the FOSS community will begin adding support for thier favorite bits of hardware.
Hardware manufacturers will follow shortly behind that releasing 'official' versions of their drivers for OS X ... especially the ones who already support Linux ... because, it more than likely just needs some tweaks to the Linux version of thier drivers to support OS X. - thinkdifferent, on 10/12/2007, -4/+7Intrepid geeks aren't a market. While we may be a vocal community, the average person doesn't want to install an OS themselves. For those who say they'll pirate it anyway to run on their existing PC... you were never a potential customer anyway. If you're willing to steal it, why would you magically pay for it given the option? Linux works in the geek community because it is free.
Selling an OS kills a lot of the hardware business. They experienced that with the clone experiment in the mid-late 90's. The way Microsoft makes money is that every OEM machine comes with windows & they get paid for that. If Apple sells the OS they are now directly competing with Microsoft for the OEM business. Microsoft might then pull Office for Mac.
Apple is still a business & the argument that their hardware is overpriced has long been invalidated. Yes, they don't sell a $299 PC like Dell. But actually trying configuring a Dell into a minimally useful machine & you've spent at least $1000. The macmini at $599 & $799 suddenly looks far more appealing. Apple tends to spec their machines with higher end parts, thus a higher starting cost. Just because they don't sell a stripped down Hyundai-style machine, doesn't mean they are overpriced. Equivalently speced hardware tends to be roughly the same cost. Where it is higher is in laptops, because you pay for weight... or lack of it. MacBook equivalent Dell is about $200 less (with lower end gfx card), but weighs about 20% more. - deadbaby, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4Apple would likely only support a few specific chipsets and video cards. There's really not that much exotic hardware out there these days -- everything is based off the same chipsets.
- darkten, on 10/12/2007, -2/+4"Inferior Intel solution"?!?! Are you *insane*?
Ok, um, I hate to make you sad here, but the "Intel Solution" was even superior on the devkits.
Now that its over, devs like myself are telling people what Apple forbid us to all along; the Intel machines are smoother and faster than the powerpc machines they are replacing.
Folks were paranoid about the "no benchmarks" stuff for the wrong reasons, son.
As all the x86 folks had been saying since forever, the x86 machines spank the PPCs, and have for awhile...but OSX couldn't play in that sandbox.
The fact that native versions of the same software were *spanking* their PPC versions on a *single core "fake" dual cpu system (Single P4 3.2ish Ghz with HT) versus a *Dual 2Ghz G5* wasn't just "writing on the wall"...it was Huge Blinkin' Neon Signs.
The PPC platform was dead to Apple long before they admitted it to outsiders; when 3Ghz didn't happen and the requirement of 1 pound heatsinks and liquid cooling to get close...it was a done deal.
The Yonah chips are amazing. Sorry. They are essentially "G5-class" laptop chips with *better performance* at the same clock running OSX.
So your usage of the word "inferior" here is confusing; unless this is a usage of which I'm not aware.
As for the rest of the OSX on Intel experience; there is not a single indicator on the MacBook Pro that "gives away" the fact that its "not a mac but an inferior Intel solution" as I type this on my MacBook Pro connected to my Apple Cinema Display HD on my Apple Keyboard...
Oh. Accept the fact that its actually an Apple Laptop connected to said display and its not slow as hell. That's a DEAD GIVEAWAY. - chonster, on 10/12/2007, -2/+4I just recently bought a MacBook Pro after being a loyal PC user for over 10 years - I didn't think I'd ever switch.
Apple will and (and rightly so) gain market share against Windows PC's because they provide the consumer with a great EXPERIENCE. Their products are of superior design, and they are simple for anyone to use. If someone with no technical knowledge was sent to purchase a computer, I'd much rather send them to the Apple Store to get started with any sort of computing task (digital imaging, music, etc.) because they can simply get it done easier.
If you compare the Apple retail experience with anything else in the industry they are light years ahead of understanding the customer and their needs and support their customers. There is a reason Apple users are so loyal, you just won't get it until you are one. - fyngyrz, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2"It just works is a myth anyway... Computers have issues ... Apple has strong kool-aid and a pretty white box."
In support of this claim, right now, on my year-old Mac with the latest updates:
o The screen saver system repeatedly gets confused (with Apple's savers)
o The Terminal application has terminal-type handling bugs that break it pretty badly for inter-machine use
o Appleworks *STILL* has no Unicode support, which breaks it for me and about 75% of the world
o Finder can't refresh a network share after remote changes have occurred
...these are all *Apple* issues, not third-party issues.
Having said that, I have linux, OSX and various windows machines, and I by *far* prefer to spend my time on OSX. It would be delightful if OSX could be made to run on my 3.1 GHz Dell. I'm one of those users for whom the OS and the hardware reliability and performance are the important issues; the idea of buying in pursuit of the visual "aesthetics" of an Apple machine just makes me laugh.
More here:
http://www.ideaspike.com/macosxintel.shtml - suMMx, on 10/12/2007, -3/+5maybe, but apple has stressed greatly that they are a hardware company. If they lose osx exclusivity then hardware sales will suffer. With all the great new hardware coming from apple and the popularity of osx increasing it would be a bad move to sell osx seperatly. Maybe at some point when sales of macs slow they will decide to go multiplatform but right now apple has way too much going for them to release osx in to the wild.
- pabster, on 10/12/2007, -2/+4Of course, EFI is required. Fortunately, we've already seen how easy it is to emulate EFI through BIOS. And vice-versa.
OS/X runs quite well as it stands on vanilla x86. - aliguana, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2but remove the install-protection and OSX already runs on 90% of PCs*. its only the graphics drivers and network card drivers that are lacking... and I'm sure those manufacturers (ATI etc) would have drivers out within months of OSX being released (it would be bad for business not to).
its only Apple stopping OSX from being released for vanilla PCs, the driver issue is almost irrelevant.
* apparently. not tried it or anything ;) - diggnationdevon, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2I think this man and Dvorak should go bowling lol
- Boondoggle, on 10/12/2007, -2/+4more likely they would sell it to specific manufacturers who would support a specific configuration, or they would have very specific system requirements on the retail box.
- cooltom2006, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2HOORAY!!!
At last...(Hopefully)Soon people will be able to continue to buy pc and run Mac on them!! - thinkdifferent, on 10/12/2007, -2/+3The problem with this argument is that it presumes the build your own machine crowd is a large market. It's about the same market share as the Mac. The average person doesn't upgrade their OS, or go adding hardware upgrades, they buy a new machine & run whatever came on it.
Macs and PCs are roughly the same price for equivalent hardware. Apple doesn't offer a completely stripped $299 machine. But that market is also a tiny one. Dell uses the $299 PC to get you to the site, but very few people end up spending just $299. Average selling price of PCs is $1050 (see Gartner). The macMini comes below that & the iMac just above, well within the range of average pricing.
You're doing a disservice to people recommending them Windows machines if you think OS X is better. Hardware costs are not that different. But let's assume Apple did sell the OS at retail at same pricing as Microsoft, so $300 for any PC. Add your hardware cost for the generic PC plus the OS & you've spent more than an equivalent Mac. Where's the benefit?
Also Mac people don't buy Macs because they look sexy. That's just an added benefit. They buy them because as a tool, they work better than Windows options. - archer75, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1It killed them because it was the wrong time for it. The computer world is very much different now and they have an OS that is actually good.
- pabster, on 10/12/2007, -3/+4The writing is on the wall. Apple has big plans.
Some will say OS/X on generic x86 would be the death of Apple. I disagree. Between Apple's lucrative music array and (potential) OS/X sales they could offset the lower sales volume (potentially) of Apple computers.
Let us not forget that a certain portion would continue to buy Mac products -- even if you could run the software on a vanilla x86 box.
Apple has the looks and some people find that (alone) worth paying for.
Take a look at the MacBook Pro. There ain't a sexier laptop out there right now, and it is priced competitively. - anudeglory, on 10/12/2007, -5/+6I would love to have Mac OSX on my PC and i'm not a fan of Macs in anyway whatsoever but I'm not about to continue with the pre-pubescent whinging and crying between Microsoft and Macs.
I already use a dual boot system between WinXP and Linux(SuSE) and it would be good to make that a trio-boot with Mac OSX - as a part of my field in bioinformatics there is quite a lot of software that runs only (with graphical interface) on a Mac and anyway it would save me having to have a Mac sitting on my desk (saving money) and have the OS on my PC would be great... - SaintStryfe, on 10/12/2007, -6/+7THis has to be repeated often to get it through the skulls of people:
In order to make an approximate shortfall, nearly over night, Apple would need to go from 5-7% Marketshare to about 40%. Just not to lose any money. On an OS That wont' be pre-installed.
It won't happen. Maybe, if OS X's Marketshare increases dramatically, 10-12 percent let's say, then Apple can consider it. But right now, it's not gonna happen. - lukeo, on 10/12/2007, -3/+4Having Intel macs support windows is good for MS; more windows xp sales. good for apple; more Intel mac sales. and good for consumers; more choice.
Having apple release OSX for non apple hardware is good for apple, if they can get it right. They could sell OSX to 20-30% of the market rather than 2% or whatever it is right now. Yes, this is possible if they released OSX for non apple hardware and did all the right business and marketing, but I think it is unlikely to be successful. A mac is a mac because its a mac, if you know what I mean. Mac users love their macs because of the sexy machine coupled with the sexy OS. Not to mention the fact that I find it extreeeemely unlikely that Apple would even do this.
It could work to release OSX for non apple hardware, but it could equally not work. I don't think they will do it. - ChileanGoD, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2Someone listened to my prayers.
- precip, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Even if Apple does this, it's not going to make much difference, a few percent, in market share. Who will buy it?
Corporations won't switch because OS X will be missing a necessary vertical/custom application. Plus, look how hard it is to convince them to switch Open Office let alone a new operating system.
Consumers (85%) buy the OS pre-installed on the machine. OS X won't be in most cases. Why would Dell or HP install an operating system controlled by a competing hardware vendor? Some second tier vendors might support it, but it won't add up to significant market share. - pabster, on 10/12/2007, -3/+4Bah, the Driver issue is a non-issue.
Tiger currently has a pretty broad range of drivers, all things considered.
Apple could set out a list similar to Mickey's "Certified" list and tell you what is going to work hardware-wise and what is not supported.
They would not need to create thousands of drivers for legacy hardware. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1O please, don't jeopordize me!
- fyngyrz, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1No, that's incorrect. Though the installation logistics and removal of the artificial barriers to operation Apple put in place have been worked out by third parties, the undeniable fact is that OSX can, and does, run on hardware platforms not manufactured by Apple. As it turns out, OSX is so compatible, that in order to make it not work, Apple has to break it intentionally. Which they have done.
- liveinabin, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2Oh good grief, Apple will NOT be releasing OSX on PCs. They even have a DRM chip on the new Macs that guards against this. Look, they're a hardware company, they sell computers. And, right now, if you want to run every app. on every OS, you only have one choice of computer - a Mac. Do you think they're going to give that kind of exclusivity away?
- geekee, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2Apple is too evil to ever consider dropping their artificial drm barrier and allowing MacOS X to boot on standard pc hardware.
- hiro, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2"Seems to me, if this happens, Apple will become just a brand like Dell, HP, Alienware... With the only difference Apple is also selling an operating system..."
You're describing the current situation - vinny, on 10/12/2007, -7/+7"Why buy an expensive mac when you can spend 1/2 to 2/3 the money and get a better specified PC thats fully upgradable?"
Lots of reasons, but to your point, your price figures aren't accurate. The list price of a 2.0Ghz iMac with 1GB of memory and a 20" LCD is $1800. While a comparably equipped HP business PC without any LCD monitor is $1659! There are other examples, but it's clear that Macs are comparably priced. - lsyx, on 10/12/2007, -2/+2Here's the thing: What Apple and (perhaps more importantly) Steve Jobs want is to remain at the forefront of consumer computing innovation. This is why Apple is constantly adding features like EFI and the ExpressCard slot to their products. They really want to be market leaders in these areas. And it's because Apple's market share is relatively minuscule that they can afford to do things along the lines of replacing architecture and OS with completely different and incompatible upgrades. Businesses would have a fit if Dell attempted to innovate with their computers. I am reasonably certain that if Apple wants to maintain their agility that they will attempt to remain somewhat small.
Now companies don't usually attempt to do this, because it loses revenue. That's where iPod comes in. iPod is probably the best thing Apple could have going for it, because while it does require a certain amount of R&D to develop, that cost is not nearly as high as the revenue it brings in. So Apple can keep developing iPod and use the revenue to pursue their actual purpose, consumer computing innovation, without worrying about pleasing the market. I feel that today Apple holds the same position that Xerox PARC held in the beginning of the 80s, but with the key difference that Apple ships product, which allows us lucky consumers the ability to use the very best in computer hardware and software.
So long story short, Apple will not release Mac OS X for generic PCs because it is cumbersome, unstable, difficult to maintain, and inconsistent with Apple's purpose. - panique, on 10/12/2007, -4/+4The difference, ksgant, is that switching to Intel processors makes economic sense, while selling unbundled OS X does not.
- xerokitsune, on 10/12/2007, -3/+3Forgive me but aside from Quicktime and iTunes, I am unaware of any movements of Apple to becoming a software company. Yes they make a great deal of interesting software for their platform, but Apples products that cross over(iPods, Quicktime, and iTunes) to other platforms seem more like lures to get people to switch to Mac.
Personally I saw the release of boot camp(created by a 3rd party) as getting the attention of advanced budgeted users that want to run a PC and Mac but couldn't afford both(be it because of finance or space). In other words another lure to pull in more users to the Mac hardware/software platform.
I would love the legal ability to build a PC and load it to multiboot Windows, OSX, and BSD. Just because I would like something to happen doesn't mean it will. - panique, on 10/12/2007, -6/+6Definitely a crock of *****. Apparently Cringely is mathematically challenged, otherwise he would figure out two things:
1) The price for an unbundled, full license of Mac OS X would be $499-$599, not $99, which is some $30 less than the current upgrade price. Apple would have to make up for the lost OS X development subsidy that is normally collected when a Mac is sold, and they would have no choice but to collect it from the licensee.
2) At $99, if the customer has to call up about one driver installation issue, the sale is a complete loss.
The idea that Apple will sell a version of OS X for generic PCs is a wet dream. Like most wet dreams, it will never be rendered in reality. -
Show 51 - 100 of 131 discussions
The Digg Toolbar for Firefox lets you Digg, submit content, and keep track of Digg even when you're not on the Digg site. Download the official 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is