Apple VP says Mac OS X won't run on other PCs
Forthcoming versions of Mac OS X will not run on Intel-based machines sold by other PC manufactures, according to a high-level Apple executive.
The question of whether Intel support in the Mac OS X would allow it to run on machines manufactured by other PC makers has been a burning one in the minds of several Mac users ever since Apple announced plans to transition to Intel chips.
Answering questions for reporters following Steve Jobs' keynote presentation at the World Wide Developers Conference on Monday, Apple vice president Phil Schiller said the company does not plan to let users run Mac OS X on other computer makers' hardware.
"We will not allow running Mac OS X on anything other than an Apple Mac," he said.
On the other hand, Schiller said Apple won't intentionally stop users from trying to run Microsoft's Windows operating system on the forthcoming Intel-based Macs, although there will be no official support from Apple on that front.
"That doesn't preclude someone from running [Windows] on a Mac. They probably will," he said.
Apple's recently announced transition to Intel initially sparked concerns over how the company could remain profitable if its Mac OS X operating system could be run on competitors' hardware products.
Despite its growing array of digital lifestyle and productivity software applications, Apple is still strongly considered a hardware-driven company that generates the majority of its revenues from computer hardware-related sales.
However, Macs often fetch a higher average selling price than most PC brands. Given the option, most consumers would likely purchase competitive hardware at cheaper prices if they were afforded the opportunity to run Mac OS X on those systems.
It's believed that Apple will likely add a specialized chip to the motherboard of its Intel-based systems that the Mac OS X must first detect prior to booting. Either that or the company will contract a proprietary motherboard chipset from Intel that will perform a similar function.
The question of whether Intel support in the Mac OS X would allow it to run on machines manufactured by other PC makers has been a burning one in the minds of several Mac users ever since Apple announced plans to transition to Intel chips.
Answering questions for reporters following Steve Jobs' keynote presentation at the World Wide Developers Conference on Monday, Apple vice president Phil Schiller said the company does not plan to let users run Mac OS X on other computer makers' hardware.
"We will not allow running Mac OS X on anything other than an Apple Mac," he said.
On the other hand, Schiller said Apple won't intentionally stop users from trying to run Microsoft's Windows operating system on the forthcoming Intel-based Macs, although there will be no official support from Apple on that front.
"That doesn't preclude someone from running [Windows] on a Mac. They probably will," he said.
Apple's recently announced transition to Intel initially sparked concerns over how the company could remain profitable if its Mac OS X operating system could be run on competitors' hardware products.
Despite its growing array of digital lifestyle and productivity software applications, Apple is still strongly considered a hardware-driven company that generates the majority of its revenues from computer hardware-related sales.
However, Macs often fetch a higher average selling price than most PC brands. Given the option, most consumers would likely purchase competitive hardware at cheaper prices if they were afforded the opportunity to run Mac OS X on those systems.
It's believed that Apple will likely add a specialized chip to the motherboard of its Intel-based systems that the Mac OS X must first detect prior to booting. Either that or the company will contract a proprietary motherboard chipset from Intel that will perform a similar function.
Comments
Microsoft sells OS and app software. VPC allows them to sell a Windows licence, the VPC license, and whatever MS written Windows software users (legally) run. From that angle, this is a big win for MS, as they won't need(?) to jump through as many hoops to provide Wintel PC emulation on the Mac. They better just hope Windows under VPC doesn't turn out to be faster than Windows running on a native PC.
- Jasen.
I think a_greer is saying give it 6 weeks and you will be able to run OS X on your crappy dell or homebuilt PC.
I disagree. I think there will be a custom mobo with custom chipset(s). An emulator? perhaps but remember the apple legal dogs? I am sure that they have the lawsuit written already and are just waiting to fill in the blank where the name goes.
One of the main blocks to putting OS X on a non-Apple box will be that it wasn't designed for that, and will need some--probably LOTS--of hacking and tinkering. Some will get it to work--on a limited set of hardware--and instructions for that will be available no doubt, with a small but active community of pirates wasting their time keeping it going.
But OS X on generic PCs won't be simple, it won't be universal, it won't be supported, it won't meet the stated reqs for most Mac SOFTWARE (so that too will be unsupported), it won't be advertised or sold, it won't be a reviewed product, it won't be possible on every machine, and it won't be legal... and therefore it won't be for the average computer shopper, that's for sure.
Apple selling OS X to any old PC out there sounds good at first... poor Microsoft! But don't forget massive ongoing cost to develop and debug OS X and all their apps from the lowest to the highest so they run on the full chaotic array of unpredictable Wintel hardware. Don't forget massive support costs to deal with those products after the sale. Don't forget how much more complex--and thus less reliable and harder to improve--parts of OS X would have to become. Don't forget that Apple would lose the ability to design the OS and apps and hardware as an integrated system. And don't forget that Apple would be asking all their developers to face those same complexity and support issues.
Not happening any time soon. But the POTENTIAL of it does give Apple some leverage of Microsoft that it never had before. I wouldn't worry about MS killing off Mac office...
Because OpenDarwin exists, I imagine they will have a very hard time locking down the OS. They simply can't keep it from booting -- it already does. The only thing I could imagine them doing is making Aqua only run in the presence of a hardware key of some kind, but the presence of this chip could presumably be faked fairly easily with an obligingly created kext.
I strongly suspect that Apple will merely not *support* OS X on non-Apple hardware, since it has a pretty good chance of not running anyway -- the kernel was built to only run on Pentium 4s (it requires SSE2, so it *might* work on some Athlons), only really boots on ICH4 and newer Intel chipsets, has support for only three kinds of graphics card, supports exactly one family of audio chipset, etc. Aside from my machine (where it works perfectly) I've been very hard-pressed to find another where it will even boot.
Another possibility is that they're using EFI instead of PC-BIOS (which I'm sure Intel would love...). Does anyone know anything about this?
Macaddict16
Originally posted by nagromme
Not happening any time soon. But the POTENTIAL of it does give Apple some leverage of Microsoft that it never had before. I wouldn't worry about MS killing off Mac office...
The truth of it is, the larger Apple's market share gets, the more MSFT is going to NEED that Office-Mac income. I don't think they'd kill it just because Apple hit 10 %. They'd be shooting themselves in the foot, and they just went with an open file format for future versions anyway, didn't they? iWork would be brought up to strength quickly, and it will have done Microsoft almost no good to kill Office for the Mac.
give it 6 weeks after the first consumer intel mac ships and the hack will be done
Hmm... I'll give it 6 days. Even that is too long.
And even at retail next year it won't be long before the OS is cracked and available for download. I would be happy to buy a copy of the OS but if Apple is going to attempt to restict it to only run on thier hardware I will use other means to acquire a working copy.
And it won't be difficult to run on other hardware. It will support optical drives, hard drives, Nvidia and ATI video cards. What more do you want? Hardware manufacturers will have drivers for it and we will have it running on a PC.
Some thoughts:
1. The move to Intel is a necessary one for performance, supply and (possibly) cost reasons. Duh.
2. Apple has outsourced the following functions:
- manufacturing
- CPU development (NOTE: They weren't properly in the CPU business...but the effectively were with all the work they needed to do with IBM and Motorola/Freescale)
3. I expect the next outsourcing move will be motherboard design.
4. The first three things could combine to enable Apple to deliver even less expensive boxes with healthy margins. Becoming that much more competitive with the mainstream PC business.
At that point, it is really only a remaining question:
Is Apple willing and able to support OS X on non-Apple boxes?
If so, transition stage #2 could be licensing specific vendors (HP?) to begin with, where the machine specs can still be more carefully defined and controlled. This will be critical to OS X reliability and "it just works-ness". It is also a good way to test the waters. See how well things would sell. If it goes well, add Dell...between Dell and HP you can reach 80% of the market.
Finally, it is important to realize that selling hardware and OS together accomplishes two things:
1. Much better reliability...more supportable.
2. A governor for OS piracy.
Originally posted by archer75
but if Apple is going to attempt to restict it to only run on thier hardware I will use other means to acquire a working copy.
Why do you want to do this?
Originally posted by Aurora
You would have thought they would have learned something from Microsoft who still doesnt have to bother with making computers.
Not exactly true.
Originally posted by Aurora
Apple is Stupid for wanting to push hardware.
A bit harsh and untrue.
It is a different business strategy, and one that has not garnered as much business as MSFT/Dell/Intel...but "stupid" is wrong.
Apple is still a very profitable and successful company.
There are problems with the "disintegrated platform" strategy as well.
Originally posted by archer75
I would be happy to buy a copy of the OS but if Apple is going to attempt to restict it to only run on thier hardware I will use other means to acquire a working copy.
So... if you only want PART of a product, ethics don't matter? You're happy to steal that part?
Originally posted by Chris Cuilla
Not exactly true.
A bit harsh and untrue.
It is a different business strategy, and one that has not garnered as much business as MSFT/Dell/Intel...but "stupid" is wrong.
Apple is still a very profitable and successful company.
There are problems with the "disintegrated platform" strategy as well.
Console's arent computers. Apple has the best software on the planet but,,,,,,,,,it only runs on Macs. 97% of new sales on the planet uses something else then Mac. Do the Marketshare math. Apple if it has to keep making hardware then do so but by not marketing your great software because you want to sell that hardware to 3% of the planet isnt only stupid it almost sounds ignorant.
Originally posted by Aurora
Console's arent computers.
Yes they are. And so are these.
Originally posted by Aurora
Do the Marketshare math.
I know the numbers, and I didn't dispute them.
Originally posted by Aurora
but by not marketing your great software because you want to sell that hardware to 3% of the planet isnt only stupid it almost sounds ignorant.
Well first you seem ed to have "stupid" and "ignorant" swapped and probably mis-using "ignorant"...now...
It is simply a different strategy.
Apple has decided that they want to sell something that works better and is easier to support by virtue of the fully integrated nature of the solution.
The stupidity of the strategy should be considered from two perspectives:
1. Are you able to be profitable (and sufficiently profitable to continue operating) with it?
2. Are you after all of the marbles or content with only some of the marbles?
By your reasoning, any company that sells a (comparatively) niche product/service is "stupid". I would say that this perspective is itself stupid...simply due to the fact that there are tons of companies that do just this and are quite successful and profitable.
Originally posted by Aurora
You would have thought they would have learned something from Microsoft who still doesnt have to bother with making computers. Apple is Stupid for wanting to push hardware. Stupid is as stupid does and 3% of the market has shown who is and who isnt stupid. OSX is superior but Apple still wants to push hardware.
Apple works because the hardware doesn't clash with software. The lack of conflicts and the ease of use assigned to things just working is because Apple make the hardware - it's that simple.