or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Software › Mac OS X › OS X For PC...
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

OS X For PC...

post #1 of 42
Thread Starter 
None of you will take me seriously. So this is just so I can say I told you so when the time comes (or so you can laugh at me).

OS X will be announced for x86 systems at MW. This is via an independent contractor who tests mass-distributed software. Take it or leave it, I don't care. We'll see in 3 days who's full of sh*t (Could be me!).
post #2 of 42
[quote]Originally posted by SkullMac:
<strong>None of you will take me seriously. So this is just so I can say I told you so when the time comes (or so you can laugh at me).

OS X will be announced for x86 systems at MW. This is via an independent contractor who tests mass-distributed software. Take it or leave it, I don't care. We'll see in 3 days who's full of sh*t (Could be me!).</strong><hr></blockquote>

If this happens, im selling my Apple stock and buying the fastest &lt;&lt;EDIT&gt;&gt; PPC &lt;&lt;/EDIT&gt;&gt; mac I can get my hands on.

Apple will be dead.

-Paul

Edit:whoops

[ 01-04-2002: Message edited by: psantora ]</p>
125/51041 (top .2449%)-Amie Street - awesome independent DRM-free music
People really have got to stop thinking there is only one operating system, one economic system, one religion, and one...
Reply
125/51041 (top .2449%)-Amie Street - awesome independent DRM-free music
People really have got to stop thinking there is only one operating system, one economic system, one religion, and one...
Reply
post #3 of 42
If this will kill Apple why not buy the fastest PC?
All Your PCs Are Belong To Trash
Reply
All Your PCs Are Belong To Trash
Reply
post #4 of 42
Your wrong and all ur balls are belong to us (yes i want to kill that expression even more than it already has been)

Apple will die if they do that

And the fastest pc is not faster than the fastest mac thats why kidred

Apple might as well say hey while we're at we are letting people make clones to

[ 01-04-2002: Message edited by: O and A ]</p>
You Can Say I'm a dreamer
But I'm not the only one

------- John Lennon
Reply
You Can Say I'm a dreamer
But I'm not the only one

------- John Lennon
Reply
post #5 of 42
[quote]Originally posted by psantora:
<strong>

If this happens, im selling my Apple stock and buying the fastest mac I can get my hands on.

Apple will be dead.

-Paul</strong><hr></blockquote>

How right you are... Count me in for buying the $3499 machine, and kissing Apple bye bye.

But I think I would be one of those who would still purchase Apple products because of brand loyalty, and sheer enjoyment of use of Apple products.
"A fish pitched up by the angry sea, I gasped on land and I became me." -Vonnegut
Reply
"A fish pitched up by the angry sea, I gasped on land and I became me." -Vonnegut
Reply
post #6 of 42
I would totaly agree with this idea if the apps writen for X could run on both X intel and X for mac without porting. That would lead to more apps for X, otherwise I just see less people buying mac hardware.
All Your PCs Are Belong To Trash
Reply
All Your PCs Are Belong To Trash
Reply
post #7 of 42
one more thing-

If true, I'd pay to see Gates' face

actually, 2 more.

If true, what does X on Intel have to do with macs and MWSF? Seems like they'd announce it to PC users, not Mac users. That's like Gates at a PC convention saying they are making a Mac OS.
All Your PCs Are Belong To Trash
Reply
All Your PCs Are Belong To Trash
Reply
post #8 of 42
No way will Apple release OS X for x86 at MWSF. Yes, it does exist, and Apple probably has even tested it, and maybe used this independent contractor.

But it is a last resort and will not see the light of day as long as Apple remains profitable.
post #9 of 42
This is so NOT gonna happen.

Why kill clones if Apple is gonna run X on x86?

AMD/Apple partnership-maybe.

X on x86 -NEVER.

Microsoft would yank their products, I think.

All those PC VS PPC "bake-offs" in the past would make Steve look like a desperate hypocrite.

Remember OS/2 WARP?

Maybe Apple will drop PPC for a special AMD chipset BASED on x86, but Apple would never let you buy X and throw it on a home-made PC box for $599.00

Can we count the reasons why Apple will never let this happen?

Apple would have to abandon the PPC box altogather. They would be able to make PPC and x86 boxes and still make money. So you would have to buy a new computer and trash your PPC. If you think the move to PPC from 68k was hard...thais is a nightmare for Apple sales, engineers, marketing, design, partners, 3rd party vendors. Everybody is fuked! Its a lose-lose situation!

Pink. Taligent. NT on PPC. I know I know. That was the past...
A friend will help you move, but a REAL FRIEND will help you move a body.
Reply
A friend will help you move, but a REAL FRIEND will help you move a body.
Reply
post #10 of 42
"Intel Inside"? - No Way!

This is so NOT gonna happen.

Why kill clones if Apple is gonna run X on x86?

AMD/Apple partnership-maybe.

X on x86 -NEVER.

Microsoft would yank their products, I think.

All those PC VS PPC "bake-offs" in the past would make Steve look like a desperate hypocrite. He would need to come out on stage with a white flag and say "you win, Intel"

(Can you imagine the Apple TV ads with that lame Intel jingle at the end? ARRGGGGGGG! My ears are bleeding!)

Remember OS/2 WARP?

Maybe Apple will drop PPC for a special AMD chipset BASED on x86, but Apple would never let you buy X and throw it on a home-made PC box for $599.00

Can we count the reasons why Apple will never let this happen?

Apple would have to abandon the PPC box altogather. They would be able to make PPC and x86 boxes and still make money. So you would have to buy a new computer and trash your PPC. If you think the move to PPC from 68k was hard...this is a nightmare for Apple sales, engineers, marketing, design, partners, 3rd party vendors. Everybody is fuked! It's a lose-lose situation!

Pink. Taligent. NT on PPC. I know I know. That was the past...

"Intel Inside"? - No Way!
A friend will help you move, but a REAL FRIEND will help you move a body.
Reply
A friend will help you move, but a REAL FRIEND will help you move a body.
Reply
post #11 of 42
It would be completely possible for Apple to use an AMD or Intel chip with their own motherboard and other parts (including a copyrighted ROM) without making a version that could be installed on any generic PC. Actually, this would be much easier.

So, if it ever happens, it would most likely work only on a specific hardware setup and the OS still wouldn't be licensed to Dell, Compaq, Gateway, etc.
"Hearing a corrupt CEO like Cheney denigrate Edwards for being a trial lawyer is like hearing a child molester complain how Larry Flint is a pervert." -johnq
Reply
"Hearing a corrupt CEO like Cheney denigrate Edwards for being a trial lawyer is like hearing a child molester complain how Larry Flint is a pervert." -johnq
Reply
post #12 of 42
[quote]Originally posted by bunge:
<strong>It would be completely possible for Apple to use an AMD or Intel chip with their own motherboard and other parts (including a copyrighted ROM) without making a version that could be installed on any generic PC. Actually, this would be much easier.

So, if it ever happens, it would most likely work only on a specific hardware setup and the OS still wouldn't be licensed to Dell, Compaq, Gateway, etc.</strong><hr></blockquote>

Even if that happened, I would do the same thing...

-Paul
125/51041 (top .2449%)-Amie Street - awesome independent DRM-free music
People really have got to stop thinking there is only one operating system, one economic system, one religion, and one...
Reply
125/51041 (top .2449%)-Amie Street - awesome independent DRM-free music
People really have got to stop thinking there is only one operating system, one economic system, one religion, and one...
Reply
post #13 of 42
Thread Starter 
I hate my friend James...

SkullMac2 (12:10): bah
SkullMac2 (12:10): gay post as me
SkullMac2 (12:10): fag
Mr.E (12:10): lol
Mr.E (12:10): i just wanted to make you look like an ass if i lose the bet :o

I made a bet with him over the possibility of a x86 OS X port at MWSF. I'm against it, but he has his sources (and my password...). *Changes password and smites James!*
post #14 of 42
We'll see in 3 days. I am voting for not gonna happen.
NoahJ
"It is unwise to be too sure of one's own wisdom. It is healthy to be reminded that the strongest might weaken and the wisest might err." - Mahatma Gandhi
Reply
NoahJ
"It is unwise to be too sure of one's own wisdom. It is healthy to be reminded that the strongest might weaken and the wisest might err." - Mahatma Gandhi
Reply
post #15 of 42
I don't know where people get the idea that Apple would die if its OS ran on the Intel chip. Just because X would run on x86 doesn't mean it would run on a cheap PC built by some teenager [or by Dell for that matter]. Apple could still build its own proprietary motherboard with its special ROM and all. I think Motorola is the one company that would be firing more employees.

--JBytes

I posted my reply before reading Bunge's. Heck, I'm not going to delete mine anyway.

[ 01-05-2002: Message edited by: JBytes ]

[ 01-05-2002: Message edited by: JBytes ]</p>
post #16 of 42
Not gonna happen.
post #17 of 42
[quote]Originally posted by JBytes:
<strong>I don't know where people get the idea that Apple would die if its OS ran on the Intel chip. Just because X would run on x86 doesn't mean it would run on a cheap PC built by some teenager [or by Dell for that matter]. Apple could still build its own proprietary motherboard with its special ROM and all. I think Motorola is the one company that would be firing more employees.

--JBytes

I posted my reply before reading Bunge's. Heck, I'm not going to delete mine anyway.

[ 01-05-2002: Message edited by: JBytes ]

[ 01-05-2002: Message edited by: JBytes ]</strong><hr></blockquote>

Yes, but it would mean that any AltiVec (or other PPC based) functionality that anycompany (including apple) created would now be worthless. It would be like going from 68k to PPC without an upgrade path for developers. And 68k-PPC was bad enough. Switching chips in the middle of the port to OS X would be a huge mistake and many developers would levae Apple forever.

-Paul

P.S. (makes me think of MonkeyBoy Steve Ballmer yelling again )
125/51041 (top .2449%)-Amie Street - awesome independent DRM-free music
People really have got to stop thinking there is only one operating system, one economic system, one religion, and one...
Reply
125/51041 (top .2449%)-Amie Street - awesome independent DRM-free music
People really have got to stop thinking there is only one operating system, one economic system, one religion, and one...
Reply
post #18 of 42
[quote]Originally posted by dstranathan:
<strong>"Intel Inside"? - No Way!

This is so NOT gonna happen.

Why kill clones if Apple is gonna run X on x86?

AMD/Apple partnership-maybe.

X on x86 -NEVER.

Microsoft would yank their products, I think.

All those PC VS PPC "bake-offs" in the past would make Steve look like a desperate hypocrite. He would need to come out on stage with a white flag and say "you win, Intel"

(Can you imagine the Apple TV ads with that lame Intel jingle at the end? ARRGGGGGGG! My ears are bleeding!)

Remember OS/2 WARP?

Maybe Apple will drop PPC for a special AMD chipset BASED on x86, but Apple would never let you buy X and throw it on a home-made PC box for $599.00

Can we count the reasons why Apple will never let this happen?

Apple would have to abandon the PPC box altogather. They would be able to make PPC and x86 boxes and still make money. So you would have to buy a new computer and trash your PPC. If you think the move to PPC from 68k was hard...this is a nightmare for Apple sales, engineers, marketing, design, partners, 3rd party vendors. Everybody is fuked! It's a lose-lose situation!

Pink. Taligent. NT on PPC. I know I know. That was the past...

"Intel Inside"? - No Way!</strong><hr></blockquote>

You're right.
Microsoft would definately yank all their products for the Mac. It would make Jobs look like a fool after trumpeting around Mac Office X as the best office app, then having MS yank it away.

OS/2 Warp even had complete Windows 3.11/DOS compatibility, with a great interface, and was advertised to hell. IBM swore that they would never drop OS/2 (true, they still sell it.). (I actually own a copy of OS/2, unfortunately at the time, it was a real ram hog and installation took me 3 hours and required a lot of user input. Not to mention Windows kept corrupting my installed copies, though I bet intentionally. The fact that IBM never preinstalled it on their own computers or that it would never run on some of their Thinkpads was also a sign.)
post #19 of 42
How much does Apple make on the bulk of its machines? Given that iMacs constitute anywhere from 1/4 to 1/3 of Apple's annual unit sales, I would fathom around $200-$250, based on my knowledge of the industry.

Now, how much money would Apple make from selling OS X/x86 for $299 a copy?

You have 150 million PCs sold each year, worldwide. You have about 5 million Macs sold each year, worldwide.

If Apple hit a measly 10% saturation point in units sold each year, I fail to see how Apple could or would go out of business.

If Apple hit a 10% saturation point on new PC sales, it would equal Apple's current annual sales from all sources.

Seems like a no brainer to me.
-TheRoadWarrior
Reply
-TheRoadWarrior
Reply
post #20 of 42
[quote]How much does Apple make on the bulk of its machines? Given that iMacs constitute anywhere from 1/4 to 1/3 of Apple's annual unit sales, I would fathom around $200-$250, based on my knowledge of the industry.

Now, how much money would Apple make from selling OS X/x86 for $299 a copy?

You have 150 million PCs sold each year, worldwide. You have about 5 million Macs sold each year, worldwide.

If Apple hit a measly 10% saturation point in units sold each year, I fail to see how Apple could or would go out of business.

If Apple hit a 10% saturation point on new PC sales, it would equal Apple's current annual sales from all sources.

Seems like a no brainer to me.

__________________

-TheRoadWarrior
<hr></blockquote>

This is my thinking exactly.

For every lost sale of a PPC Mac due to the release of OS X for Intel there would have to be another sale of OS X for Intel.

What is the average gross margin per machine for all of Apple's PowerPC hardware?
post #21 of 42
I personally would love to see OS X for x86. If Apple did this, there is absolutely no doubt that there would be no Classic compatibility of any kind. We know Steve likes to leave legacy technology behind, and Classic would take RAM on every machine.

If Apple announces this, there will be a lot of bitching and moaning on these boards but let me say that it's a safe bet that Steve Jobs is a better strategy maker than me or anyone else on this board. If he thinks it will work, then it most certainly won't be a disaster and probably would be successful.

There is a a Jery Springer like mentality on these boards sometimes as if OS X and Windows were bitter enemies. In reality, 90% of people don't know anything about Macs and they aren't going to give up Windows just to try it. Apple needs to provide Windows compatibility as a bridge to get people to move over.

We all claim that using MacOS is miles ahead of using Windows. If this is true, then people will WANT to buy the Mac version rather than the Windows version of software. You aren't going to get more users by not allowing them to have Windows with their Mac. If Apple can offer a Windows and OS X PC for $100-$200 more than the same spec'ed Dell, with iMovie, iTunes, Appleworks, and some Mac only features like Airport or Gigawire, they'ed get lots of new users. If these users don't find the MacOS better enough to buy MacOS software, then they wouldn't have been long term Mac users anyway.
post #22 of 42
If OSX/x86 was really that expensive, they wouldn't get anything close to 10% of the PC market. If people can buy WinXP for less, how many people are going to want OSX?
post #23 of 42
Ok here is the thing apple has OSX and windows is making a new windows called Windows X also know as windows 10
the alpha of it looks like XP they might have to change the name.
also apple is thinking of posablt stoping orking on GT for windows and have QT for mac and linux only.
Any way a PC would run OSX way to slow
A Apple a day keeps the pc's at bay
Reply
A Apple a day keeps the pc's at bay
Reply
post #24 of 42
Windows XP home edition is $200.

Having looked at some somewhat recent Apple filings (1Q 2001) though, their CPU unit sales are 751,000 with a total gross margin of $385 million. That's about $512 per machine.

Note that the gross margin includes everything (hardware, software, etc.), so it's anybody's guess as to how much margin they make per CPU. It could be a little bit lower, or could be drastically lower, perhaps someone has some more information.

It would probably appear very foolish to release OS X for Intel in the short run (and next year Apple would probably have some very angry shareholders) but long term it might be a good bet.

Frankly, I can't imagine anything that would realistically blow anyone away except for the release of OS X for Intel. New machine speedups/speedbumps, digital gadgets, etc. are newsworthy, but not the way they're hyping it up to be.

Having actually looked at the numbers, I'd say releasing OS X for Intel is probably much less likely than I thought it was, but what else could it be (besides something that's massively overhyped).

Maybe we'll see a commercial with "Steven" (Jobs) - "Dude, you're gettin OS X!"
post #25 of 42
[quote]Originally posted by TheRoadWarrior:
<strong>How much does Apple make on the bulk of its machines? Given that iMacs constitute anywhere from 1/4 to 1/3 of Apple's annual unit sales, I would fathom around $200-$250, based on my knowledge of the industry.

Now, how much money would Apple make from selling OS X/x86 for $299 a copy?

You have 150 million PCs sold each year, worldwide. You have about 5 million Macs sold each year, worldwide.

If Apple hit a measly 10% saturation point in units sold each year, I fail to see how Apple could or would go out of business.

If Apple hit a 10% saturation point on new PC sales, it would equal Apple's current annual sales from all sources.

Seems like a no brainer to me.</strong><hr></blockquote>

<img src="graemlins/bugeye.gif" border="0" alt="[Skeptical]" />

Apple doesn't charge $299 for OS X, they charge $129. They won't bump the price by &gt;100%. Remember when people were bitching about the $20 or whatever to get an update mailed to them?

Secondly, it is SO easy to pirate a copy of OS X (not that I have). It's not so easy to pirate a complete Mac including the average 30% margin on each machine.

I'm sure Michael Dell would love to license the Mac OS from Steve. Yeah right! Hmm. ok, Maybe HP or Compaq will license it? As if they don't have enough BS to deal with already. Hmm. Ok, Gateway! They'll buy it. Uh, yeah sure.

So, who's left? Sony. That would be the only REMOTE possibility, only problem is none of the current Mac software is written to work on x86, so Sony would be stuck with a bunch of SMacs with no apps.

The only way OS X would be on intel is if Apple put the crappy Pentium in the box themselves. Thing is, Apple likes making small computers, and Pentiums ain't small. Or cool. And they still wouldn't run any software. It's an endian thing. I'm not a programmer, but the people I've talked to who are say it just doesn't work.
post #26 of 42
Have you seen the mess that it takes to cool the G4? Puhleeze. Look at some photos of the high end G4 machines. It's a mess.

In fact, even in the slot loading iMacs, the entire middle of the machine is a big heatsink made of aluminum.

I never said Apple would charge $299 for the Mac version of OS X. I said Apple could charge $299 for the x86 version. If people want it, they will pay for it, just like they do for all the millions of retail copies of Windows that fly off the shelf.

And, don't forget, the average is just that. The vast majority of machines sold by Apple earn a small margin. That margin would be made up by lost sales from people buying a PC with OS X for x86 on it.

Trust me, any economic student would tell you to use scale of quantity to make more money. Apple's got a potential market of 150 million machines a year just ripe for the pickings.

Microsoft has done it and done it well. Apple could do it and do it well, if they wanted to.

There is not one damn thing Apple could do more to shake up the industry more than to release OS X for x86. Not even the DOJ could strike the fear of God into the clowns in Redmond like that one move would do. It would be the most brilliant thing ever.
-TheRoadWarrior
Reply
-TheRoadWarrior
Reply
post #27 of 42
[quote]Originally posted by cpm:
Windows XP home edition is $200.

Having looked at some somewhat recent Apple filings (1Q 2001) though, their CPU unit sales are 751,000 with a total gross margin of $385 million. That's about $512 per machine.

Note that the gross margin includes everything (hardware, software, etc.), so it's anybody's guess as to how much margin they make per CPU. It could be a little bit lower, or could be drastically lower, perhaps someone has some more information.

It would probably appear very foolish to release OS X for Intel in the short run (and next year Apple would probably have some very angry shareholders) but long term it might be a good bet.

Frankly, I can't imagine anything that would realistically blow anyone away except for the release of OS X for Intel. New machine speedups/speedbumps, digital gadgets, etc. are newsworthy, but not the way they're hyping it up to be.

Having actually looked at the numbers, I'd say releasing OS X for Intel is probably much less likely than I thought it was, but what else could it be (besides something that's massively overhyped).

Maybe we'll see a commercial with "Steven" (Jobs) - "Dude, you're gettin OS X!"<hr></blockquote>

Standard markup in the computer industry is about 25%. The more expensive the machine, the lower the margin. You do the math.

If people are willing to pay $299 for WindowsXP, then, people would be willing to pay $299 for OS x86.
-TheRoadWarrior
Reply
-TheRoadWarrior
Reply
post #28 of 42
[quote]Originally posted by sizzle chest:
If OSX/x86 was really that expensive, they wouldn't get anything close to 10% of the PC market. If people can buy WinXP for less, how many people are going to want OSX?<hr></blockquote>

If people were rewarded with a richer experience, then, they'd buy it. For only $100 more? Sure they would.

Isn't the whole idea of paying twice as much for the average Mac than the average PC sort of the same thing? After all, nowadays, the difference in decent PC hardware and Mac hardware is negligible.

It would be a whole lot more tempting to spend, say, $100 more, than, say, $500-$1000 more, to get the same experience. I think it would be great for the consumer.
-TheRoadWarrior
Reply
-TheRoadWarrior
Reply
post #29 of 42
[quote]Standard markup in the computer industry is about 25%. The more expensive the machine, the lower the margin. You do the math.

If people are willing to pay $299 for WindowsXP, then, people would be willing to pay $299 for OS x86.

__________________

-TheRoadWarrior
<hr></blockquote>

Well, the lower the price of the machine, the lower the gross margin ($ wise, not percentage). I'd venture a guess that the percentage margins on Apple's high end machines are probably higher than the iMacs as well.

But you know what would be really mind blowing? If Apple would release machines that would justify the cost of PPC hardware vis a vis x86, especially in regards to OS X. Then Apple would still have enough demand for its hardware (translating to profits), AND they would be able to release OS X for Intel without eating too much into their high margin sales. Heck, they could even still make cool low end machines if the "cool" factor was high enough.

Hmmm....
post #30 of 42
That's sort of what I'm shooting at.

Either come back with x86 Mac clones, or, sell and license OS X for Intel.

There's too much pie out there not to take a slice.
-TheRoadWarrior
Reply
-TheRoadWarrior
Reply
post #31 of 42
If OS X was released for x86, does that mean all our Carbon and Cocoa apps would run perfectly?
post #32 of 42
[quote]If OS X was released for x86, does that mean all our Carbon and Cocoa apps would run perfectly? <hr></blockquote>

Cocoa apps would, I'm not sure about Carbon though.

I think Apple is touting Cocoa as the future of development for the platform, and Carbon is more a of transition for apps from OS 9 to X.
post #33 of 42
Carbon isn't going anywhere. I seriously doubt we will ever see PhotoShop in Cocoa, and even new apps like Maya are done in carbon. It would be unwise for Apple to drop their C++ toolkit.

And Apple will not try to license its OS again. Not as long as Jobs want to "make the whole widget" and not as long as there are no viable buyers of the OS to bundle with their x86 hardware. Remember that the money for their software development comes from their hardware sales. That's why iTunes is free, no? And so is the OS when you buy a Mac.

Apple might make their own x86 hardware to Run OS X on, but I doubt it because 1. x86 is closer to the end of its life rather than the beginning of it; 2. it would still take a lot of effort to port it and apps fully -- lots of potholes in the road; and 3. look where they are with the refinement of the system that runs on Motorola chips -- why take tackle two branches that need this much refinement at the same time?

[ 01-06-2002: Message edited by: BuonRotto ]</p>
post #34 of 42
We have about 1000 PCs in our company. If Apple came out with OS X for intel, guess how many of the 1000 PCs would run OS X. I'll tell you. None. Because none of their specialized little database apps would work on OS X.

The majority of Windows machines out there are in business. No company is going to go switching all of their desktops to OS X just for, what we consider to be, a richer experience.

I agree it would be good for the consumer. It would be great if a person could go to Compaq's website and have a choice of 4 or 5 OS's each with a somewhat equal marketshare - which would mean a somewhat equal amount of apps. But they can't.

It's too late for Apple to start licensing the Mac OS. It's too bad, but it's true.

Most people with PCs simply don't know enough about them, or the Mac OS, to bother with putting it on. Take a look at Linux. It's got about a 2-3% marketshare. People could put that on. True, Linux isn't as easy to deal with as OS X, but only geeks would bother and I just don't think there are enough geeks out there to justify Apple making X for intel.

Jobs and Co. have repeatedly stated how they can do the things they do because they build the OS and the hardware. It is highly unlikely that Apple would give a person running a dell the ability to use iMovie, iTunes, iTools etc. How many people would really spend $299 for OS X? On top of that, how much of there stuff would work with it? What about all of those little internet cams that won't work, or the incompatible microscopes, or steering wheel things, or the all in one scanner/fax/copier, or the multitude of other devices that wouldn't work. A person would spend $299 on OS X only to find out they couldn't use half their stuff. Next thing you know they're saying "Apple sucks, Mac sucks blah blah blah".

Don't forget, Apple would also have to support all of these people with their strange boxen. Imagine a person with a gateway calling Apple:

customer: "yeah I just put on OS X and I can't get iMovie to work with my camera."

support: "Which kind of computer do you have"
customer: "A gateway".
support: "Which Gateway?"
customer: "Oh, it's from March".
support: "do you have a model number?"
customer: "I think it's #754783GL"
support: "(flipping through an encylopedia of pages)oh, um sir, I think that machine doesn't have firewire".
customer: "what's firewire?"
support: "it's a high speed connector that let's you hook up cameras etc."
customer: "But it says on the OS X box that I can make movies with this OS."
support: "that's true, but you need the right connector".
customer: "I just spent $299! I could've got dazzle for $299 if I would've know I needed the connector".
support: "I'm sorry know one told you".
customer: "well, here's another problem, none of my games work anymore either."
support, "that's because they're for Windows, you'll have to buy them over again if they exist for Mac."
customer: "Mac sucks *click*".


I just can't think of any compelling reason why my girlfriend's mom would go buy OS X for her PC for $299. She's still using Win98 for crying out loud, as are a lot of people, including my GF's three brothers, and her sister... They'll upgrade when they buy a machine, not with a CD.

Only, if Apple made an Intel PC themselves, with a special ROM would they make OS X for intel. And I just don't see the point of that. For a little speed? Lose all of your carbon apps for a little speed? nah. Sorry.

[ 01-06-2002: Message edited by: seb ]</p>
post #35 of 42
The ONLY reason you have Windows on those 1000 machines is because you have NO choice. Linux is too splintered to be any threat.

But, OS X for x86 would be a threat. Pushed by a company that takes in $5 billion a year.

And, it would seem to me that porting applications which are already x86 native wouldn't be much trouble if they are already ported to another platform as they are now.
-TheRoadWarrior
Reply
-TheRoadWarrior
Reply
post #36 of 42
[quote]Originally posted by TheRoadWarrior:
<strong>The ONLY reason you have Windows on those 1000 machines is because you have NO choice. Linux is too splintered to be any threat.

But, OS X for x86 would be a threat. Pushed by a company that takes in $5 billion a year.

And, it would seem to me that porting applications which are already x86 native wouldn't be much trouble if they are already ported to another platform as they are now.</strong><hr></blockquote>

While it's true that the MS side of the IT dept. really doesn't really have a viable alternative on the 1000 PCs (Linux wouldn't really do the trick - exchange servers, access etc.) they wouldn't put OS X on if they could.

Here's the cold, hard, political truth. With 3 IT managers, and 16 support techs who only know MS, who are constantly worrying about keeping up on training, they wouldn't kill off their own jobs by abandoning their own technology. My company doesn't even hire its own tech support people. There are three managers for the PC side and one for the Mac side (one of the PC managers is the ''overall" CIO). They have a contract through Siemens which takes care of all of the tech support people including training, repairs etc. The management simply doesn't want the responsibility of hiring and training the people. It's not just the company I work for either. Siemens is a client of many,many large corporations including, but not limited to, Bear Sterns, Merril Lynch, Morgan Stanley, JP Morgan, and even Microsoft. Siemens makes a big deal out of how many MCSE certified techs they have. I'm a Mac guy, working as a "consultant" on the Mac side and they even offer me MCSE, A+ and all of that other training. I'll probably take them up on it (I guess, since its free), even though I make a healthy chunk more salary than the dime a dozen PC techs, but that's another issue.

On top of that, we've got a Windows 2000 rollout scheduled for later this year (big companies don't usually upgrade too fast - see the OpenLicense 6.0 debate).

Bottom line is people's jobs rely on PCs running Windows. You may find a relatively small percentage of consumers who would like to run OS X on their x86 box, but I really don't think it would justify the expense or risk for Apple.

It's too bad because, as you say, it would be good for the consumer. But it's just too late. It would be a support nightmare.

If Apple wants to break into the enterprise market they're going to have to figure out another way. And if they make X for x86, it'll be on their own hardware with specialized ROMs. Or a special deal with Sony or someone. But not an off the shelf CD. Unless they really have some crazy great plans and enormous balls.
post #37 of 42
[quote]Originally posted by cpm:
<strong>

Cocoa apps would, I'm not sure about Carbon though.

I think Apple is touting Cocoa as the future of development for the platform, and Carbon is more a of transition for apps from OS 9 to X.</strong><hr></blockquote>

Cocoa apps would NOT run without AT LEAST a recompile. After all, it's still PPC machine code, Cocoa or not.

Bye,
RazzFazz
post #38 of 42
[quote]Originally posted by TheRoadWarrior:
<strong>

If people were rewarded with a richer experience, then, they'd buy it. For only $100 more? Sure they would.
</strong><hr></blockquote>

Ask your PC using friends whether they'd pay $299 to upgrade their PC to run OSX. Remember, most people don't pay $199 for WinXP, they buy a computer with XP pre-installed.

I think you'll hear as many variations on "yeah, right!" as you have friends.
post #39 of 42
It's true that if 150 million PCs are sold per year, and Apple could sell a $299 app to 10% of people who buy PCs, they could earn more profit than by doing what they're doing now. But does anybody really believe Apple can sell a $299 version of OSX for x86 to 10% of the people who buy a PC?

Remember that Microsoft will NEVER allow Dell, Gateway, and the rest to offer OSX86 pre-installed on those machines, at least not as long as those companies wish to sell some flavor of Windows on their other machines.

So consumers will be faced with WinXP pre-installed no matter what, and an optional $299 add-on to get OSX86. In this scenario, I think Apple would be lucky to get 1% of customers interested, let alone 10%.
post #40 of 42
I think the only real option is a version of OS X Server. There are probably a lot of IT staff interested in OS X, but unwilling to buy an expensive Apple server to test it out. If they could install it on an old machine and give it a trial run, it would lead to further Apple hardware sales. Once it gets into the IT shop, even on one machine, it would spread to the desktop, and then from an employee's desktop to their home.

I could see Apple's marketshare going from 5% to 10% like this.
"Hearing a corrupt CEO like Cheney denigrate Edwards for being a trial lawyer is like hearing a child molester complain how Larry Flint is a pervert." -johnq
Reply
"Hearing a corrupt CEO like Cheney denigrate Edwards for being a trial lawyer is like hearing a child molester complain how Larry Flint is a pervert." -johnq
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Mac OS X
AppleInsider › Forums › Software › Mac OS X › OS X For PC...