yet another OS X on PC hardware thread - Page 2

Not only that but where would the software come from. I think introducing a PC that does not run windows is going to be a hard fought battle, the battle that MS would prefer. I know window users that are thinking about getting a Mini just for their kids to surf the internet and play music. I think that going after the general PC market is looking a gift hourse in the mouth. These people want an internet/multimedia appliance, and Apple has all of the right pieces right now.

Added: Going after MS directly would be dumb. 95+% of the general use PC market is Windows. And Apple would have a great OS but very little Apps. Better to play to strength, leverage the OS and Apps that Apple has developed to provide a solution. What I think is that more people would buy a multimedia solution than would buy a Mac. And the supply pipe needs to be opened up, Apple cannot supply this market alone, it is small for Dell, Sony, and HP but it is huge for Apple. People like choise. But Apple would never let Dell or HP to put different front ends on their software. What would be interesting is for someone that is good with numbers to look at the potential market. Is this 100,000 per month or 1,000,000 per month. I know that because of security issues people are wanting an internet e-mail solution. Apple OSX is secure, it has internet and e-mail apps. Other folks are wanting to get rid of the stereo, DVD, player for home theater. Apple has that crowd covered in that they have iLife and Quicktime. iChat would be a nice solution for those that want to use their multimedia appliance to chat with others be it internet phone, internet video phone, or text chat.

Darwin does not use X11. X11 uses Darwin. Aqua and Core Image use Darwin.

If I remember correctly the initial NextStep hardware sold for $10K. If NextStep had supported the Mac hardware I had at the time I might very well had bought a copy of the NextStep software. In any case Darwin is light years ahead of NextStep in terms of how much x86 hardware variety it supports.

As I said earlier, Apple should focus on supporting new x86 hardware. That would minimize the amount of testing Apple has to do. It would also be in line with the desire of PC makers to promote sales of new PC models. I can see PC makers actively working with Apple to make sure their latest hardware is supported by OSX since after all that will help sell even more PCs. If older x86 hardware is supported by OSX consider that a bonus, kind of like PPC OSX being able to run on old Mac hardware Apple no longer supports.

It would be dumb for Apple to release an x86 OSX that didn't include the same useful bundled applications that the PPC OSX includes. Therefore we can count on those Apple apps being available from the start.

I also would expect Apple to work with commercial developers to ensure a good number of popular applications are ready for x86 OSX on its debut day. You have to keep in mind that making most PPC OSX applications work on x86 OSX should be a trivial matter due to the identical API's and functionality that would be present in both versions in the OS.

Since x86 machines far outnumber PPC machines, it would be stupid for PPC OSX developers to pass up the opportunity to dramatically increase the number of software copies they sell. Just as there will eventually be many more Windows iPods than Mac iPods, there would eventually be many more PCs running OSX than PPC machines running OSX.

If Apple doesn't release x86 OSX in the near future, x86 LINUX will do to OSX what Windows did to MacOS years ago. Apple can't afford to make the same mistake twice.

The Mac mini's greatest competitor is all those 1.5 GHz to 2 GHz used PCs selling on eBay for $200 or less. I have personally bought a 1.9 GHz Athlon PC for around $100 and another one for around $150. I have them running LINUX at the moment, but I could run Windows on them just fine if I wanted to. A PC user would have to be crazy to buy a $500 Mac mini when you have all those used PC bargains around.

Did you read the part about security? the bottom line is that you have to use a 2GHz x86 if it is connected to the internet. Spyware. Those PCs could be running dozens of programs. They bog down and slow down the Windows PCs and they will do more than that for Linux when it is less obscure.

This would require a major amount of work, and what would be the return on that investment? Apple would have just walked into the lions den. Go ahead, try and challenge MS on the desktop. Sounds like the same type of moves that saw several CEOs out of Apple. If you remember when Steve came back, he said the desk top wars are over, Windows won. Apple caught a wave with the iPod, the desktop market is not like the MP3 player market at all.


When would this be? Not anytime soon, Apple still has a long way to go. Just because they are starting to get back to some respectable numbers of hardware sales does not mean that they are ready to take on MS on the desktop. One thing to remember about MS strategic maneuvers is that they move fast, the courts move slow. Anyone remember the lesson that MS taught Apple with Quicktime? Quicktime movies suddenly got the file extension .qt not the expected .mov this little maneuver cost Apple a few months of work trying to figure out what had went wrong for their windows customers. Don't forget, Apple needs MS and has a good working relationship with them ever since Steve took over.


So the OSX developers would have two small markets to sell and market their software to. Buy our product for Mac OSX Intel and forget that you could get more selections if you were using Windows. I believe that SJ said that sell the Mac OS would cost the hardware makers around $600 for each copy. Apple is hardware and software both. I think that 60% of revenue came from hardware, Apple would be cutting their own throat. They would have the costs of porting and supporting to amortize all the while they would be cutting their own hardware revenue stream. Picture what happens when you lean too far on a ladder, maybe when hardware is less than 25% of total revenue would this be plausible. Also remember that Apple does make 40% of their revenue from software and their customers are used to regular updates, so Apple would have to pay to port their software to x86 and pay to improve their PPC software, this is an expensive battle.


Apple would never give up ease of use. Let those guys run Linux on x86, how would Apple compete with them? Cost? No. Ease of use? in some areas yes. The idea that Linux will run over the Mac is far off at best. They have less control than MS over security issues. They are secure because they are obscure, Linux has been cracked before and they will be again. Apple is not ready to fight both Linux and MS, better to let those two fight it out and watch for opportunities. By hook and crook, is how to fight this battle not fight the desktop war that would leave Apple bleeding, and has so many times in the past. The past is the past and like I mentioned before that war is over, MS has won the desktop war. Better to get in the homes a different and better way than declaring war on MS and Linux. Better to team with Sony and work with them to bring appliances into the homes. Hook and crook. Apple needs to have an ally and best to work with them on small but fast growing things first. What if they, Apple and Sony, worked together to bring a multimedia box to the consumer market then later it was endowed with the ability to surf the net and e-mail and chat then later still it gained the ability to edit home movies and burn HD-DVDs. That is a small but fast growing market, and pursuing that would not be entering the desktop wars. Apple and Sony could do great things for this market and make money doing it, going after MS on the desktop would leave them hurting and MS stronger. You can see that MS is already working hard on security, they will catch up, just watch. Now is a time to hook and crook not declare war just because MS is regrouping they can still fight.

with the whole processor-design-philosophy-story going on now and the resulting developments of new architecture it would be foolish to start a x86 port now and invest too much money in it... JMHO

I meant for Apple to make a box using the AMD/Intel architecture. Maybe some people would want to pay a little more for Apple design and engineering. A bit less risky than OS X on AMD/Intel.

I don't think that there is much if any profit there, that is why Dell and HP are signing service contracts for just about anything remotely close to that computer they sell to their customers. Everything, like support staff for standard hardware and software configurations and server support.

Brendon- I meant other companies licensing OS X on Power PC boxes. I'm not sure what you mean by where is the software. All OS X software would work...?

OSX on Intel = bad idea.

Intel CPUs are less advanced than the G5. AMD Athlon 64 FX series are the only ones to compare and they are ridicuously expensive.

The only advanage Intel has is Sonoma vs. G4, but nothing versus G5 (not even extreme edition against the 2.5 G5). Soon enough, there will be a mobile G5 and that will be that.

PC hardware is inferior in reliability and performance.

Why would I buy an HP system when I could buy Apple instead. Just look at the iPod situation. Nobody wants the HP version, they all want Apple.

The thing with Apple is that you get a rock-solid, feature-rich OS, amazingly integrated digital content apps, and top notch build quality and style on top of it all. To get that in a PC, you would have had to buy an IBM, which were every bit as expensive as Apple (and IBM was always using yesteryears PC hardware - of course mot point now with Lenovo buying the division).

Sony hardware quality is a complete joke, HP is merely head-above-water, and Dell is cheap as cheap can be. They are chaep price wise, but the systems are junk. I work on one in an office and the thing is the dog of the bunch (even after two complete overhauls).

Even if Apple were to license the OS, people would want iLife and that would cost more. I don't like the PC vendors' OS vs. App model and Apple can integrate at a low cost to themselves in their own machines. To license to PC vendors, they would have to charge more and the PC vendors would balk. They want an easy way to say: "hey, we are the jack of all trades" and try to trivialize Apple being the best thing that ever happened to them.


---------


The only way this should ever happen is if Apple forces a quality committment (overseen by an Apple QA team) and also forced the PC vendor to manufacture systems based on the Power architecture (since it seems that future ships will enable the operation of Mac OS, Linux and Windows, etc.) That would ensure a stable coding environment, without too many variables.

Apple is an outstanding softwar company. What gets overlooked is the fact tha Apple is also an outstanding hardware company. The laptops, for their size and capability are incredibly thin an sleek (espcially the 17"-- Look at Apples and compare it to Dells, HPs or Sonys and Gateways-no contest) and early on adapted 802.11 G (before it was an industry standard). The comany invented the mouse (which is the most used peripheral in the history of computing), makes LCD displays that can actially be used for mission-critical, precise, reliable color-accurate design work. The Xserve is possibly the best rack mount server in the world. Apple hardware is in the hearts of a growing number of (can you believe affordable) supercomputers and relible enough for military use. The iPod (shuffle, mini, or any) is seemlessy integrated. It has revolutionized the music and consumer electronics industry - So much so that companies like Creative have almost totally copied the iPod look (not quite though-still looks hodge-podge)to try to cash in - isn't that kind of close copying illegal? Anyway. People are not that dumb. They know a good thing when they see it. Apple is riding high right now because it has great hardware and the killer apps to get it noticed. the iPod simply opened the worlds eyes to take another look at how far the company has come. Back in 1997, PCs were better than Apple computers. That was that. No one wanted an Apple. Whay? because they were'nt any good. Now the table are turned. Apple hardware is superior, the software is superior, it is easier to use, it looks light-years better (even Sony looks like antiquated style now), Apple has figured out how to make computers a part of mainstream life and not some geeky thing you do by yourself and everything "just works" so well.

The PC world NEEDS Apple. Not the other way around. If Apple is to license, they should exercize the wisdom of serious control. The only way a PC should run OSX is if the harware is very similar, Apple has strict control over what kind of quality the PC vendor produces and Apple makes a ton of money, while still leveraging their products as superior to the vendor (albeit with a small premium on high-end models and the lowest price on low end models). OSX is not just an 'alternative' that a vendor can throw in a system to appease a niche group. It needs just as much commitment that is given to Windows, if not more. Linux did not start flourishing until IBM and HP put some actual care into it (which is not much care). The PC word revolves around MS. If a PC vendor wants to offer an 'alternative', they can offer Linux or even better, Linspire.
If they want to offer something great, they can fully support OSX on the right hardware, under Apples terms and act like they care.






Until then, for all of those PC users sick of security issues, unstable Operating Systemsand apps, having to pay hundreds of dollars ever time they need a program to be productive, ugly style, having to "rent(see subscribe, license, etc)" software instead of owning it, etc. etc. etc..


For all of those people, the answer is not to buy OSX on HP or whatever. The answer is this:

Come to Apple. It's better here.

Sorry I agree. But I think that going the appliance route with Sony is the way. What if Sony could build a playstation that ran two operating systems, Playstation and OSX but OSX would be for multimedia and internet services. My point here is that both Sony and MS are postioning their systems as both game platforms and DVD players and internet boxes. If Sony could ink a deal with Apple and use OSX for the multimedia services and internet services the experience for the customer would be great. Sony hardware design and Apple software design. I think that these two companies have wanted to work together for some time now.

What if Apple made a bare-bones version MacOS as freeware on x86.
If its freeware Apple doesn't have to worry about certifing the infinite number of PC hardware combinations. No support costs to worry about. The development work has been basically done and paid for ( Motorola insurance). Apple could make alot of money selling software apps to the other 94% of computer users. Do what Microsoft did to Netscape, and others, give away product to undermine a rival. pull a MS on MS.

Apple could still sell a tested, certified, supported, full featured version MacOS for new x86 machines, to top tier vendors. Apple would make vendors pay for testing and certification. And of course make the vendors pay for license and software bundles.

I'm betting Apple is going to license MacOS to Sony, IBM and if they do share the crown jewels with others they should just bust the doors down and blow the roof off the x86 world. And settle some old scores.

Oh what will I do when Apple is mainstream and Quicktime is everywhere?

User experience is why they won't do this. Steve would shutter at the thougt that a person would say I tried using that on a pc it was awful, don't buy the full version it is not worth it. The way Apple has suceeded is because they have been great at putting the user at the focus of what they do. Giving up any aspect of this would be negatng much of the work that they do and potentially giving them a bad name as well. In short it would be nothing to wait for.


Don't know about IBM but I think yes to Sony, which would make more sence. IBM is a computer maker, while Sony is an appliance maker, and a vary good one. Sony just does not have vision now, SJ and team do though Apple has an OS that is good enough for an appliance, which is no small feat. Apple and Sony working together on appliances would be mainstream, and it would involve Quicktime

I will try to write something more intelligent as what Harald did.

Don't forget Apple is succesfull because they are both a hardware and software developer. The whole reason that "everything works on a Mac" is that Apple is one big filter in the world of hardware and software.

When I buy a PC, I can choose from like 50 videocards. The same counts for each other component. What happens is that there is much more chance drivers conflict, you get lousy written drivers from a 3rd party vendor, etcetera.

Apple, on the other hand, only offers a select amount of hardware options. Options that are well. Because of this "filter" or quality assurance, you get the whole "Apple experience". Same counts for hardware drivers. More options = less quality assurance when it gets out of Apple's hand.

Apple is all about being part of a family, and Steve Jobs is idealistic: he rather wants Apple being relative small and keep the "Apple spirit", instead of turning into a "Microsoft 2".

Also remember where steve started.

he made his own hardware with Woz and he wrote his own software to go with it.

Still the apple model.

Sony might however issue forth the second coming of the clone. As long as they both use the same chips and boards why not have a bunch of apple guys sitting in sony's house certifying the sony designs. Part of the licensing deal I would imagine.

Jep, you're right about the past.


Hmm, I believe Apple didn't invent the mouse, but this guy: http://www.cnn.com/TECH/9704/09/mouse.inventor/
And, Xerox (inventor of the GUI, desktop metaphor), used the mouse in their OS before Mr. Jobs walked into their office and recognised that it was the future of computing.

Jobs -> *visionair*, not neccessarily the *inventor*
Xerox -> Inventor, but didn't do anyhting useful with it.

Yeah Xerox PARC invented a huge amount of what we use nowadays in computers, they just didn't do anything with it.

Sad really.