The ones that hack OS X to run on their PCs are unlikely to buy OS X even if it were offered as a supported solution.
I agree. And I haven't heard any convincing reason how Apple could offer OS X as a supported solution for third party Intel-based systems if they intend to remain profitable selling their own systems ...
Attempting to emphasize that point with a comparison, Sun Microsystems comes to mind when thinking of companies doing something similar. Yes, Solaris x86 runs on systems Sun doesn't produce, but also on SPARC-based systems they do (still) produce whereas Apple has announced a complete transition (AFAWK) from their PPC-based products by the end of 2007. Although there's some overlap, the markets that Apple and Sun compete in also have significant differences. With OS X opened to third party hardware, I have serious doubts whether Apple's Intel-only-based hardware business could lucratively survive in its market as Sun is somehow managing to do it (barely?) with Solaris and its hardware.
Wouldn't the time to officially support OS X on other hardware be if sales of Apple's own systems weren't profitable enough? Otherwise, they may be risking killing hardware sales by doing it sooner. Heck, this all becomes quickly overspeculative without any actual products and sales numbers.
Well, I'm currently researching a PC to replace my G5, and if it ends up with Mac OS X on it, all the better.
So you're buying a PC, but you'd like it run OS X.
Tough luck, kid. Hack it onto your next PC or bite the bullet and buy a Macintel.
If it's any consolation, Macintels will probably be much cheaper than current Macs. If ATI keeps making cross-platform cards like the Radeon 9600 Pro, we'll have PC graphics card prices. The Intel processors are going to be dirt cheap considering the entire Mac lineup will be using Intel chips.
Apple won't be able to justify keeping Macs at the same price levels when they're saving a couple/few hundreds on parts.
Remember when PowerMacs used to start at/around $1599? I'm fairly sure those days are coming back.
Expanding a bit on kim kap sol's last post, here's brief speculation on Apple's strategy for its Intel-based computer business ...
Being able to run OS X and other operating systems on Intel-based Macs could be one reason some people will consider a Mac when they're buying a new computer, if pricing is competitive enough.
For now I see Apple remaining uninterested in licensing/supporting OS X on non-Apple computers, giving them the distinct advantage of running it on their own hardware while also not doing anything to prevent other OSs from running on it. Apple may figure enough people buying new computers will be interested in the capability of running every major OS (OS X, Windows, Linux), especially business customers. And "switcher" gamers, I guess. Enough that Apple wouldn't be concerned with making OS X available for older, non-Apple computers. And would it really be unlike Apple to behave that way.
Until now buying a Mac has always excluded most people from running anything but OS X on it. Looking forward with the scenario I've described, buying a computer other than a Mac could become a less desirable alternative in enough situations for Apple to take advantage of.
So you're buying a PC, but you'd like it run OS X.
Tough luck, kid. Hack it onto your next PC or bite the bullet and buy a Macintel.
If it's any consolation, Macintels will probably be much cheaper than current Macs. If ATI keeps making cross-platform cards like the Radeon 9600 Pro, we'll have PC graphics card prices. The Intel processors are going to be dirt cheap considering the entire Mac lineup will be using Intel chips.
Apple won't be able to justify keeping Macs at the same price levels when they're saving a couple/few hundreds on parts.
Remember when PowerMacs used to start at/around $1599? I'm fairly sure those days are coming back.
I would like to take this one step further. I wold like to see Apple license the OS to curtain vendors that will use curtain Intel chip sets. One of the reasons that I would like to see this is for one thing. WARNING FUD: MS has said that they will no longer support OpenGL in their OS, instead opting for their own solution DirectX9 or something like that. If this is the case then I could see the video card vendors asking themselves why support OpenGL when it is only 5% of the market. This is a play by MS to consolidate an advantage and force the others, Apple et all, to respond. This transition could take some time like a few years to play out, but if Apple could show serious gains then it would lessen the affect of the MS play. END FUD I do think that this is the way to go to get to those people that would like to try the Mac, key word try. If I were trying a Mac and I found that if I did not like it I could sell it or use it to serve music or prop a door open, the answer would be no way, too risky for the money. I might do that for small dollars but for me to pluck down $500 or more I would like to know that if things did not work out I could still walk down to the Comp Store and buy a copy of Windows, (the devil I know), load it on to my computer and I'm back to a windows way of computing. I see the Intel hardware as a big step in this direction but I see being able to buy the whole thing from Dell, or Sony, or etc., to be an extension of removing the fear barrier that may confront some customers.
I wold like to see Apple license the OS to curtain vendors that will use curtain Intel chip sets.
So, Apple is going to risk cannibalizing its own computer sales by licensing OS X to other vendors?
I'm not convinced that Apple is as interested in having OS X run on as many different computers as possible as they are in selling as many of their own computers as possible with OS X (and even other OSs) running on them. Of course no one knows what'll happen after the first Intel Macs are released. If profits are too low then licensing OS X might be a worthwhile strategy. Otherwise, the benefits for them (not us) of doing it any sooner elude me.
I don't think much new will come out of this. Apple doesn't represent big sales to Intel. Apple came to intel to get cheap chips from a company that cared about desktop CPUs.
Actually Intel has been pursuing Apple for the past few years. Its just now recently Apple decided to buy what they are selling.
The most important question really is why does Intel want Apple's business? Its true Apple would not represent big sales for Intel.
Lets look at the dynamics.
Apple and PowerPC have worked well in integration. For most of the past five years PowerPC even at intermittent times has kept par with Pentium mathematics even at slower clock speeds.
For the past five years Intel has been in a creative funk and and somewhat void of innovation. AMD has much better processors. Intel at this point needs to be challenged and needs a focus. Apple can help provide that focus.
Quote:
Diving into another expensive niche platform negates those benefits. Apple most certainly is tied to the x86 ISA now. Going to a new platform would break compatibility with what they're trying to develop now.
Apple has shown in the past that being an expensive niche player is not necessarily the worst place to be. Many people assume that Apple's transitioning to x86 will now join the rank and file of other x86 OEM's. This is not true to Apple's history at all.
One thing we do know Apple being such a small company when they make choices and decisions they have to do so with respect to years down the line.
So I believe Apple already knows what its going to do next year and even the year after that. All of this lays the groundwork for five years from now.
It seems the current developer OSX x86 is a preview. A base from which developers can begin the transition. This may not point the way Apple is headed when Tiger for x86 is released.
The current developer OS does not even address EM64T. And by late '06 Leopard should certainly be based on that extension.
At this point its difficult to say if Apple is completely irreversibly tying itself to x86. But what I do believe is that Apple will continue to deliver what it believes as a superior computing experience. And often that does not follow what everyone else is doing.
Over all the argument for Apple opening OS X is being made by those who want to build their own boxes. Those who are willing to buy expensive components and tweek for their own needs.
This is also a very small niche.
I have a Mac because I do believe the Mac to be a superior platform. I am not interested in building my own computer. I just want to buy one that works. I want to install applications, plug in peripherals, and all of this to work with little effort from me.
And that is what the Mac provides.
For example:
I live in New York. At the Jet Blue terminal in JFK airport they have free WiFi.
My last trip I sat with my PowerBook surfing the web.
During the time I wait for my flight, I have three people come to me asking if I were able to get online.
I tell them yes I was online.
They tell me they are having trouble connecting wirelessly to the internet. They are all using PC laptops and Windows.
Two of the people I offer to look at their connection software. I'm not sure if this was the connection software that comes with XP or a third party app, but both were very confusing. One I figured out, but the other was beyond my knowledge.
I showed them both how simple it is to connect using a Mac. How using the Air Traffic Control widget in Dashboard makes it even more simple.
So you're buying a PC, but you'd like it run OS X.
Tough luck, kid. Hack it onto your next PC or bite the bullet and buy a Macintel.
If it's any consolation, Macintels will probably be much cheaper than current Macs. If ATI keeps making cross-platform cards like the Radeon 9600 Pro, we'll have PC graphics card prices. The Intel processors are going to be dirt cheap considering the entire Mac lineup will be using Intel chips.
Apple won't be able to justify keeping Macs at the same price levels when they're saving a couple/few hundreds on parts.
Remember when PowerMacs used to start at/around $1599? I'm fairly sure those days are coming back.
There's absolutely no reason to believe that Intel-based Macs will be any cheaper. After all, the only thing that Intel is making is the motherboard and the CPU. If the motherboard became $0.00, that would only be a $70 price drop. And the Intel CPUs are marginally less expensive than the PPC970, and they'll only get more expensive when they become dual-core across the line.
Right now, I'm seeing $1200 as the maximum price for a computer with a sizzling AMD 3800+ and a 7800 Ultra. Do you think a Powermac is going to be cheaper than that? Ever? Didn't think so.
Over all the argument for Apple opening OS X is being made by those who want to build their own boxes. Those who are willing to buy expensive components and tweek for their own needs.
This is also a very small niche.
I have a Mac because I do believe the Mac to be a superior platform. I am not interested in building my own computer. I just want to buy one that works. I want to install applications, plug in peripherals, and all of this to work with little effort from me.
And that is what the Mac provides.
For example:
I live in New York. At the Jet Blue terminal in JFK airport they have free WiFi.
My last trip I sat with my PowerBook surfing the web.
During the time I wait for my flight, I have three people come to me asking if I were able to get online.
I tell them yes I was online.
They tell me they are having trouble connecting wirelessly to the internet. They are all using PC laptops and Windows.
Two of the people I offer to look at their connection software. I'm not sure if this was the connection software that comes with XP or a third party app, but both were very confusing. One I figured out, but the other was beyond my knowledge.
I showed them both how simple it is to connect using a Mac. How using the Air Traffic Control widget in Dashboard makes it even more simple.
So the lesson of the story is... you were using Mac OS X. You can do that on a PC too, you know!
Brendon you are saying the same thing over and over.
And what you are saying is exactly what Apple has said they won't do.
Why Apple will not and should not do that has been expressed in this thread many times.
If you want to continue your current arguement, you will need to show how Apple could possibly survive if it did open OS X to the wider x86 world.
Apple would then compete with Microsoft directly on Microsoft's terms. Apple would also kill its extremely profitable hardware business.
Explain how Apple could survive this.
Yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, and yes! Any further discussions of "open OS X to the wider x86 world" advocacy that ignores those specific points is a futile waste of my time. Thanks for expressing them more clearer than I was able to.
So the lesson of the story is... you were using Mac OS X. You can do that on a PC too, you know!
... stated as you conveniently avoid responding to the first part of his post:
Quote:
Over all the argument for Apple opening OS X is being made by those who want to build their own boxes. Those who are willing to buy expensive components and tweek for their own needs.
Ok, I'm curious, how many people here are PC users that are simply desperate for OS X on their boxes?
Let's step back a minute here. Why did Apple switch to Intel processors? Well because they want to be more like PCs so that they can start marketing their Operating System to the masses of course! The reason Apple has moved to Intel is because the PPC processor isn't keeping up with what they want to do. They want to be able to update their ibook and powerbook line with faster processors! They need Intel for the new products they've envisioned! They want better processors! Steve made all of the reasons for the switch very clear at the WWDC. It has nothing to do with opening up Mac OS X to the public. People should know by now that Steve, by all indications, would never do that. He's never even implied that he would ever do such a thing, why do you all of the sudden think he will? It just doesn't make any sense at all. Think like a vulcan ! It'd be horribly illogical.
In addition to all that, supposing for a second they do, (just SUPPOSING). I would be very upset because then I wouldn't be able to wow all of my friends with my awesome computer. If everybody owned a Rolls Royce, it wouldn't be a novelty.
Ok, I'm curious, how many people here are PC users that are simply desperate for OS X on their boxes?
The same people who haven't given a convincing argument how it's possible for Apple to do that without killing its Macintel computer sales?
Let's suppose the official x86 OS X release is hacked/pirated for non-Macintel systems (quite possible, regardless of any "customer-acceptable" protection schemes). Let's suppose that version has superior performance on systems (homebrew or from other vendors) priced significantly less than the Macintel. I'm interested in hearing speculations about how Apple might respond to that particular not impossible situation instead of just circling some older (sub)topic wagon again.
Comments
Originally posted by kim kap sol
The ones that hack OS X to run on their PCs are unlikely to buy OS X even if it were offered as a supported solution.
I agree. And I haven't heard any convincing reason how Apple could offer OS X as a supported solution for third party Intel-based systems if they intend to remain profitable selling their own systems ...
Attempting to emphasize that point with a comparison, Sun Microsystems comes to mind when thinking of companies doing something similar. Yes, Solaris x86 runs on systems Sun doesn't produce, but also on SPARC-based systems they do (still) produce whereas Apple has announced a complete transition (AFAWK) from their PPC-based products by the end of 2007. Although there's some overlap, the markets that Apple and Sun compete in also have significant differences. With OS X opened to third party hardware, I have serious doubts whether Apple's Intel-only-based hardware business could lucratively survive in its market as Sun is somehow managing to do it (barely?) with Solaris and its hardware.
Wouldn't the time to officially support OS X on other hardware be if sales of Apple's own systems weren't profitable enough? Otherwise, they may be risking killing hardware sales by doing it sooner. Heck, this all becomes quickly overspeculative without any actual products and sales numbers.
Originally posted by Placebo
Well, I'm currently researching a PC to replace my G5, and if it ends up with Mac OS X on it, all the better.
So you're buying a PC, but you'd like it run OS X.
Tough luck, kid. Hack it onto your next PC or bite the bullet and buy a Macintel.
If it's any consolation, Macintels will probably be much cheaper than current Macs. If ATI keeps making cross-platform cards like the Radeon 9600 Pro, we'll have PC graphics card prices. The Intel processors are going to be dirt cheap considering the entire Mac lineup will be using Intel chips.
Apple won't be able to justify keeping Macs at the same price levels when they're saving a couple/few hundreds on parts.
Remember when PowerMacs used to start at/around $1599? I'm fairly sure those days are coming back.
Being able to run OS X and other operating systems on Intel-based Macs could be one reason some people will consider a Mac when they're buying a new computer, if pricing is competitive enough.
For now I see Apple remaining uninterested in licensing/supporting OS X on non-Apple computers, giving them the distinct advantage of running it on their own hardware while also not doing anything to prevent other OSs from running on it. Apple may figure enough people buying new computers will be interested in the capability of running every major OS (OS X, Windows, Linux), especially business customers. And "switcher" gamers, I guess.
Until now buying a Mac has always excluded most people from running anything but OS X on it. Looking forward with the scenario I've described, buying a computer other than a Mac could become a less desirable alternative in enough situations for Apple to take advantage of.
Originally posted by kim kap sol
So you're buying a PC, but you'd like it run OS X.
Tough luck, kid. Hack it onto your next PC or bite the bullet and buy a Macintel.
If it's any consolation, Macintels will probably be much cheaper than current Macs. If ATI keeps making cross-platform cards like the Radeon 9600 Pro, we'll have PC graphics card prices. The Intel processors are going to be dirt cheap considering the entire Mac lineup will be using Intel chips.
Apple won't be able to justify keeping Macs at the same price levels when they're saving a couple/few hundreds on parts.
Remember when PowerMacs used to start at/around $1599? I'm fairly sure those days are coming back.
I would like to take this one step further. I wold like to see Apple license the OS to curtain vendors that will use curtain Intel chip sets. One of the reasons that I would like to see this is for one thing. WARNING FUD: MS has said that they will no longer support OpenGL in their OS, instead opting for their own solution DirectX9 or something like that. If this is the case then I could see the video card vendors asking themselves why support OpenGL when it is only 5% of the market. This is a play by MS to consolidate an advantage and force the others, Apple et all, to respond. This transition could take some time like a few years to play out, but if Apple could show serious gains then it would lessen the affect of the MS play. END FUD I do think that this is the way to go to get to those people that would like to try the Mac, key word try. If I were trying a Mac and I found that if I did not like it I could sell it or use it to serve music or prop a door open, the answer would be no way, too risky for the money. I might do that for small dollars but for me to pluck down $500 or more I would like to know that if things did not work out I could still walk down to the Comp Store and buy a copy of Windows, (the devil I know), load it on to my computer and I'm back to a windows way of computing. I see the Intel hardware as a big step in this direction but I see being able to buy the whole thing from Dell, or Sony, or etc., to be an extension of removing the fear barrier that may confront some customers.
Originally posted by Brendon
I wold like to see Apple license the OS to curtain vendors that will use curtain Intel chip sets.
So, Apple is going to risk cannibalizing its own computer sales by licensing OS X to other vendors?
I'm not convinced that Apple is as interested in having OS X run on as many different computers as possible as they are in selling as many of their own computers as possible with OS X (and even other OSs) running on them. Of course no one knows what'll happen after the first Intel Macs are released. If profits are too low then licensing OS X might be a worthwhile strategy. Otherwise, the benefits for them (not us
[i]Originally posted by xmoger [i]
I don't think much new will come out of this. Apple doesn't represent big sales to Intel. Apple came to intel to get cheap chips from a company that cared about desktop CPUs.
Actually Intel has been pursuing Apple for the past few years. Its just now recently Apple decided to buy what they are selling.
The most important question really is why does Intel want Apple's business? Its true Apple would not represent big sales for Intel.
Lets look at the dynamics.
Apple and PowerPC have worked well in integration. For most of the past five years PowerPC even at intermittent times has kept par with Pentium mathematics even at slower clock speeds.
For the past five years Intel has been in a creative funk and and somewhat void of innovation. AMD has much better processors. Intel at this point needs to be challenged and needs a focus. Apple can help provide that focus.
Diving into another expensive niche platform negates those benefits. Apple most certainly is tied to the x86 ISA now. Going to a new platform would break compatibility with what they're trying to develop now.
Apple has shown in the past that being an expensive niche player is not necessarily the worst place to be. Many people assume that Apple's transitioning to x86 will now join the rank and file of other x86 OEM's. This is not true to Apple's history at all.
One thing we do know Apple being such a small company when they make choices and decisions they have to do so with respect to years down the line.
So I believe Apple already knows what its going to do next year and even the year after that. All of this lays the groundwork for five years from now.
It seems the current developer OSX x86 is a preview. A base from which developers can begin the transition. This may not point the way Apple is headed when Tiger for x86 is released.
The current developer OS does not even address EM64T. And by late '06 Leopard should certainly be based on that extension.
At this point its difficult to say if Apple is completely irreversibly tying itself to x86. But what I do believe is that Apple will continue to deliver what it believes as a superior computing experience. And often that does not follow what everyone else is doing.
And what you are saying is exactly what Apple has said they won't do.
Why Apple will not and should not do that has been expressed in this thread many times.
If you want to continue your current arguement, you will need to show how Apple could possibly survive if it did open OS X to the wider x86 world.
Apple would then compete with Microsoft directly on Microsoft's terms. Apple would also kill its extremely profitable hardware business.
Explain how Apple could survive this.
This is also a very small niche.
I have a Mac because I do believe the Mac to be a superior platform. I am not interested in building my own computer. I just want to buy one that works. I want to install applications, plug in peripherals, and all of this to work with little effort from me.
And that is what the Mac provides.
For example:
I live in New York. At the Jet Blue terminal in JFK airport they have free WiFi.
My last trip I sat with my PowerBook surfing the web.
During the time I wait for my flight, I have three people come to me asking if I were able to get online.
I tell them yes I was online.
They tell me they are having trouble connecting wirelessly to the internet. They are all using PC laptops and Windows.
Two of the people I offer to look at their connection software. I'm not sure if this was the connection software that comes with XP or a third party app, but both were very confusing. One I figured out, but the other was beyond my knowledge.
I showed them both how simple it is to connect using a Mac. How using the Air Traffic Control widget in Dashboard makes it even more simple.
Originally posted by kim kap sol
So you're buying a PC, but you'd like it run OS X.
Tough luck, kid. Hack it onto your next PC or bite the bullet and buy a Macintel.
If it's any consolation, Macintels will probably be much cheaper than current Macs. If ATI keeps making cross-platform cards like the Radeon 9600 Pro, we'll have PC graphics card prices. The Intel processors are going to be dirt cheap considering the entire Mac lineup will be using Intel chips.
Apple won't be able to justify keeping Macs at the same price levels when they're saving a couple/few hundreds on parts.
Remember when PowerMacs used to start at/around $1599? I'm fairly sure those days are coming back.
There's absolutely no reason to believe that Intel-based Macs will be any cheaper. After all, the only thing that Intel is making is the motherboard and the CPU. If the motherboard became $0.00, that would only be a $70 price drop. And the Intel CPUs are marginally less expensive than the PPC970, and they'll only get more expensive when they become dual-core across the line.
Right now, I'm seeing $1200 as the maximum price for a computer with a sizzling AMD 3800+ and a 7800 Ultra. Do you think a Powermac is going to be cheaper than that? Ever? Didn't think so.
Originally posted by TenoBell
Over all the argument for Apple opening OS X is being made by those who want to build their own boxes. Those who are willing to buy expensive components and tweek for their own needs.
This is also a very small niche.
I have a Mac because I do believe the Mac to be a superior platform. I am not interested in building my own computer. I just want to buy one that works. I want to install applications, plug in peripherals, and all of this to work with little effort from me.
And that is what the Mac provides.
For example:
I live in New York. At the Jet Blue terminal in JFK airport they have free WiFi.
My last trip I sat with my PowerBook surfing the web.
During the time I wait for my flight, I have three people come to me asking if I were able to get online.
I tell them yes I was online.
They tell me they are having trouble connecting wirelessly to the internet. They are all using PC laptops and Windows.
Two of the people I offer to look at their connection software. I'm not sure if this was the connection software that comes with XP or a third party app, but both were very confusing. One I figured out, but the other was beyond my knowledge.
I showed them both how simple it is to connect using a Mac. How using the Air Traffic Control widget in Dashboard makes it even more simple.
So the lesson of the story is... you were using Mac OS X. You can do that on a PC too, you know!
Originally posted by TenoBell
Brendon you are saying the same thing over and over.
And what you are saying is exactly what Apple has said they won't do.
Why Apple will not and should not do that has been expressed in this thread many times.
If you want to continue your current arguement, you will need to show how Apple could possibly survive if it did open OS X to the wider x86 world.
Apple would then compete with Microsoft directly on Microsoft's terms. Apple would also kill its extremely profitable hardware business.
Explain how Apple could survive this.
Yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, and yes! Any further discussions of "open OS X to the wider x86 world" advocacy that ignores those specific points is a futile waste of my time. Thanks for expressing them more clearer than I was able to.
Originally posted by Placebo
So the lesson of the story is... you were using Mac OS X. You can do that on a PC too, you know!
... stated as you conveniently avoid responding to the first part of his post:
Over all the argument for Apple opening OS X is being made by those who want to build their own boxes. Those who are willing to buy expensive components and tweek for their own needs.
This is also a very small niche.
Originally posted by sjk
... stated as you conveniently avoid responding to the first part of his post:
It runs on standard Dells as well.
Originally posted by Placebo
It runs on standard Dells as well.
I knows its conjecture at this point.
But I doubt OSx86 will run on a Dell as well as it will run on a Macintel.
What would be the point of buying a Mac, if OS X were not optimized for Mac hardware.
Originally posted by TenoBell
I knows its conjecture at this point.
But I doubt OSx86 will run on a Dell as well as it will run on a Macintel.
Once Mac OS X Intel is released, it will run better.
Let's step back a minute here. Why did Apple switch to Intel processors? Well because they want to be more like PCs so that they can start marketing their Operating System to the masses of course!
In addition to all that, supposing for a second they do, (just SUPPOSING). I would be very upset because then I wouldn't be able to wow all of my friends with my awesome computer. If everybody owned a Rolls Royce, it wouldn't be a novelty.
Originally posted by Placebo
It runs on standard Dells as well.
And your point is ...? Would you like us to condone that pirated, hacked, pre-release versions of x86 OS X are running on computers other than a Mac?
I'm not going to reboot that topic.
Originally posted by Gene Clean
Once Mac OS X Intel is released, it will run better.
Better than or on what? Than it is right now? Or on non-Macintel boxes? It wasn't clear which you meant.
Originally posted by sjk
I'm not going to reboot that topic.
Better than or on what? Than it is right now? Or on non-Macintel boxes? It wasn't clear which you meant.
Better than a similarly clocked/equipped PPC.
Originally posted by DeaPeaJay
Ok, I'm curious, how many people here are PC users that are simply desperate for OS X on their boxes?
The same people who haven't given a convincing argument how it's possible for Apple to do that without killing its Macintel computer sales?
Let's suppose the official x86 OS X release is hacked/pirated for non-Macintel systems (quite possible, regardless of any "customer-acceptable" protection schemes). Let's suppose that version has superior performance on systems (homebrew or from other vendors) priced significantly less than the Macintel. I'm interested in hearing speculations about how Apple might respond to that particular not impossible situation instead of just circling some older (sub)topic wagon again.