Should Apple offer a stripped-down, totally unsupported version of OS X for x86?
In light of the problems Apple is having with pirates versions of OS X for x86:
http://apple.slashdot.org/article.pl...045250&tid=179
One Slashdot user proposed what is, IMO, a realistic solution for Apple to deal with the problem:
http://apple.slashdot.org/comments.p...6&cid=13343721
I know many of you will be strongly critical of this selection, but now that the cat's out of the bag and determined users will get their hands on this OS no matter what, they should start trying to profit from this and exploit this to get these users to like OS X so much that they'll buy a Mac.
Yes, I understand that Apple lost money when they licensed Mac OS to the clone makers, and that it would totally foolish to sell a fully-supported version of OS X for vanilla x86 systems. Apple should absolutely offer zero support for such an OS and leave paying users on their own, just like those running the leaked copies are now.
http://apple.slashdot.org/article.pl...045250&tid=179
One Slashdot user proposed what is, IMO, a realistic solution for Apple to deal with the problem:
http://apple.slashdot.org/comments.p...6&cid=13343721
I know many of you will be strongly critical of this selection, but now that the cat's out of the bag and determined users will get their hands on this OS no matter what, they should start trying to profit from this and exploit this to get these users to like OS X so much that they'll buy a Mac.
Yes, I understand that Apple lost money when they licensed Mac OS to the clone makers, and that it would totally foolish to sell a fully-supported version of OS X for vanilla x86 systems. Apple should absolutely offer zero support for such an OS and leave paying users on their own, just like those running the leaked copies are now.
Comments
Apple needs to stabilize the platform on Intel and let it grow rather than look to branching out and becoming unfocused IMO.
Originally posted by hmurchison
Word of mouth is important. That's why Apple cannot sell a stripped and unsupported OS X. There would be legions of disgruntled people that would slam Apple for every problem they can't fix.
Apple needs to stabilize the platform on Intel and let it grow rather than look to branching out and becoming unfocused IMO.
You dont sell a strip down version,all you do is sell last years OS say Jaguar and you have on the reqs decent motherboards and cpu's. no big deal. Its Apple who looses in this because the customer is just going to go out and buy another PC with windows. 95% marketshare means customer is king not Apple. Apple needs to wake up. They have a product that can take on windows but they want to keep pushing stagnated PPC's and a product line that doesnt allow the buyer to configure a hardware set up to suite the purchaser.
Originally posted by Aurora
Not selling your strongest product (software ) is stupid. If Apple has had OSX for PCs running for 5 years then yes they should be selling this to PC users. They are missing lots of sales and its a no brainer. Mac tech vs PC tech hasnt worked very well for Apple. Lets just face it there is better,faster,cheaper hardware in the PC world vs Apples stagnated PPC lines. Why shouldnt we have the best OS on the Fastest hardware? This Alienware Aurora would be very sweet with OSX installed. Then i could have my games and my Mac
I don't buy this "Apple should put their best foot forward" argument. Tiger x86 is already out there and being downloaded. The genie's out of the bottle. Apple can't prevent people from downloading and running these illegal copies.
Besides "stripped down" doesn't mean "broken". There's tons of shareware available for download where you're prompted to upgrade to the pay version for a better set of features. Why can't Apple do something along those lines?
Originally posted by Aurora
Not selling your strongest product (software) is stupid.
Except for the fact that Mac OS X and Apple software is not what makes the money for Apple as a corporation! Hardware sales make the company what it is. In the moment Apple releases Mac OS X x86, Apple is in deep trouble. People will use it, sure. Maybe Apple would even gain some market share. But, the system will have to run on a variety of hardware that it hasn't been extensively tested for (ala Microsoft Windows). Eventually, that mass distribution of Mac OS X will be hacked into because of the unlimited hardware configurations the system has to handle. And don't forget about the fact that they would have to build in legacy support. And it goes on...
Mac OS X is the best operating system on the planet, in my opinion, but it should remain Apple's and Apple's alone. I think the move to Intel will increase Apple's market share, the systems will run longer and require less maintenance and BECAUSE they are running the SAME hardware as Windows systems, will be slightly less expensive and supported by business and IT much more than the current Mac iteration.
Apple is in good shape for the future.
Originally posted by JavaCowboy
Apple can't prevent people from downloading and running these illegal copies.
I bet that you can't download a copy and get it installed well enough to use it as your everyday OS. Prove me wrong...
On the other hand, I don't think they should sue to stop tinkerers and hackers from getting the standard retail OS X to run on generic hardware. Make it difficult, to ensure that only the right kind of people will try - but don't actually stop them. A little hacking will spread word-of-mouth, increase mind-share, and many of those hackers will probaby go buy a boxed retail copy to play with. I think if Apple were really bright, they'd lean heavily on pirates and not at all on people who hack up legitimately bought retail copies. If those people like OS X, they'll eventually get tired of the hassles of hacking it, and buy a full-blown Mac.
Originally posted by Towel
I think the original question is missing the point. Should they "offer" a stripped-down, totally unsupported version of OS X for x86? Sure. Call it the retail box of OS X for x86 Macs. I don't think they should make even the slightest effort to suggest that anyone run OS X on a non-Mac. As folks have pointed out here, it opens up a huge can of worms by guaranteeing that people will try it who really shouldn't, and that those people will have bad experiences that they'll blame on Apple.
On the other hand, I don't think they should sue to stop tinkerers and hackers from getting the standard retail OS X to run on generic hardware. Make it difficult, to ensure that only the right kind of people will try - but don't actually stop them. A little hacking will spread word-of-mouth, increase mind-share, and many of those hackers will probaby go buy a boxed retail copy to play with. I think if Apple were really bright, they'd lean heavily on pirates and not at all on people who hack up legitimately bought retail copies. If those people like OS X, they'll eventually get tired of the hassles of hacking it, and buy a full-blown Mac.
+1
Except I don't think I'd ever buy a full-blown Mac again.
Originally posted by Placebo
+1
Except I don't think I'd ever buy a full-blown Mac again.
Maybe not. But even if required only as much effort as it takes to run Gentoo happily on my x86 box, I'd be still willing to spend the money to have one computer that ran effortlessly. Think of how much of a pain it is to buy a PC with components that you know are Linux-friendly, and how difficult it can still be to get Linux running flawlessly on them. And consider that universe of OS X-friendly parts is going to be radically smaller, with zero cooperation from vendors. I dunno, I see it really being the realm of hard-core hobbyists, which there aren't many of - and who usually have multiple machines, anyway, one of which may well be a real Mac.