Will Apple offer OS X for PCs?

Posted:
in macOS edited January 2014
I think Apple should make a version of OS X for Intel/AMD based PCs. No hacks, just a real Mac OS X for PC.



I understand OS X is built for a Mac, but now with Intel hardware in the new Macs, it's gotta be possible and I hope Apple will offer this. This is a good time to do it, now with Vista seemingly a blunder in many ways.



I would like to see Microsoft become much less common. I would lke to see Openoffice take over and Linux and/or Mac OS X take over on PCs and Macs, alike.



What does everyone think about this?



Andrew
«134567

Comments

  • Reply 1 of 127
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Freudian View Post


    I think Apple should make a version of OS X for Intel/AMD based PCs. No hacks, just a real MAC OS X for PC.



    I understand OS X is built for a MAC, but now with Intel hardware in the new Macs, it's gotta be possible and I hope Apple will offer this. This is a good time to do it, now with Vista seemingly a blunder in many ways.



    I would like to see Microsoft become much less common. I would lke to see Openoffice take over and Linux and/or MAC OS X take over on PCs and Macs, alike.



    What does everyone think about this?



    Andrew



    This will NEVER happen and thankfully so. One of the things (probably the main thing) that makes the Mac platform so outstanding is Apple's ability to control the exact hardware that the OS runs on. In this way they know exactly what the user experience will be and can eliminate most issues before the user ever sees or is bothered by them.
  • Reply 2 of 127
    ps5533ps5533 Posts: 476member
    If they do it would have to be priced much higher than the OS would be for a Mac, like 300+ because Macs would sell much, much less than they do now. i personally like them for the OS and wouldn't stay loyal to a Mac when i could save on a home made, refurb intel.
  • Reply 3 of 127
    Not to sound like a dick, but it's not MAC! It's Mac. MAC implies an acronym for something, like Media Access Control, where as Mac is short for Macintosh.



    Apple has tried licensing the OS before and Jobs killed the program as soon as he returned to Apple. Apple's a hardware company; you don't license the very thing that sells your hardware.
  • Reply 4 of 127
    areseearesee Posts: 776member
    Apple's been there, done that and lost their shirt.
  • Reply 5 of 127
    hmurchisonhmurchison Posts: 12,132member
    Agree with what's been said here.



    While it's nice to think about running OS X on cheap refurb hardware..when something goes haywire these frankenbox owners will be the first people clogging up Apple Tech $upport lines raising the cost for all of us.



    Frankly I have no desire to see Apple obtain more than %15 Worldwide marketshare. I like having a nice tidy Mac ecosystem and frankly I don't want a bunch of low rent "computing on the bottom dollar" patrons stinking up the gene pool. Yes I understand that was incredibly arrogant and I'm certainly not talking about anyone here in this thread.



    Cloning happened and quality dropped immediately on Mac systems.
  • Reply 6 of 127
    feartecfeartec Posts: 119member
    I hope it will happen one day, and we can all use wind power and solar cars with zero pollution....



    EVERYONE is out to make money my friend, if OSX and Apple came to power, it would most likely change nothing. The compatibility is a problem, however. With PC people constantly replacing their internals it would likely be impossible for Apple to keep up, and so the cycle would continue.
  • Reply 7 of 127
    slewisslewis Posts: 2,080member
    I tell you the exact same thing I told pretty much every person who suggested the idea on DellIdeaStorm.com in the first week of it's ideas.



    Apple would not stab Steve Jobs in the back and they wouldn't license the biggest selling point of their Hardware. As proven by Dell, Sony, and Toshiba, pretty much every other hardware company can duplicate Apple's hardware and say for example, stick a camera in the bezel. It may not feel or look as nice, but the average human being is more likely to go for the cheapest possible hardware with the most benefits.



    Apple customers pay a premium to use Mac OS X because Apple chooses not to compete in every single price point instead choosing only the ones they may benefit the most from. Currently that's a Mid Range Notebook, a High End Notebook, an Education iMac, a Low End Mac that has only the computer in the box, a low end to high end AIO and the Workstation market.



    Admittedly this is more detailed then the explanations I gave to guys over at Dell.



    Sebastian



    EDIT:

    I forgot to point out a couple of things. Apple still refuses to update the Mac Mini to this day, and as far as I know it's the worst selling of all the Mac Models. Translation: Apple isn't benefitting from it much if at all. So don't be surprised to see it dropped. They have a low end iMac anyways priced very closely to the Mac Mini anyways.



    Sebastian
  • Reply 8 of 127
    tednditedndi Posts: 1,921member
    In a word.



    No.



    Next question.
  • Reply 9 of 127
    pbpb Posts: 4,231member
    After the return of S. Jobs, I could never believe that Apple would license its OS. But then I could never believe it would drop the "Computer" from its corporate name.
  • Reply 10 of 127
    backtomacbacktomac Posts: 4,579member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by hmurchison View Post




    While it's nice to think about running OS X on cheap refurb hardware..when something goes haywire these frankenbox owners will be the first people clogging up Apple Tech $upport lines raising the cost for all of us.



    But to be the devil's advocate (because I'm not really for liscensing OSX) Apple would almost assuredly make the pc vendor handle support calls for OSX if there is an issue. It really would only amount to lost hardware sales not increase support costs.
  • Reply 11 of 127
    slewisslewis Posts: 2,080member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by backtomac View Post


    But to be the devil's advocate (because I'm not really for liscensing OSX) Apple would almost assuredly make the pc vendor handle support calls for OSX if there is an issue. It really would only amount to lost hardware sales not increase support costs.



    Lost Hardware sales is exactly why it won't happen.

    Mac users would end up paying for it though. Apple would have to either a) Force Vendors to use a specific set of Hardware requirements (which would take the point out of licensing it) or b) Invest more time and energy and money than it's worth to support the vast amount of Hardware out there with their OS. They can't even get Airport Updates right.



    Sebastian
  • Reply 12 of 127
    backtomacbacktomac Posts: 4,579member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Slewis View Post


    Lost Hardware sales is exactly why it won't happen.



    You thinking about it in terms of how important Mac sales are to Apple now. What about in 2 years? What if non-computer sales and profits are 75% of Apple's business. Certainly Apple thinks non-computer sales will be important going forward as they've changed the name of the company to reflect that. I still don't want or think it will happen but it is harder to dismiss the possibility.
  • Reply 13 of 127
    slewisslewis Posts: 2,080member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by backtomac View Post


    You thinking about it in terms of how important Mac sales are to Apple now. What about in 2 years? What if non-computer sales and profits are 75% of Apple's business. Certainly Apple thinks non-computer sales will be important going forward as they've changed the name of the company to reflect that. I still don't want or think it will happen but it is harder to dismiss the possibility.



    OK, so what you are suggesting is that Apple will take the potentially less profitable Mac sales in 2 years and make it even less profitable just so people can run OS X on a Dell?



    Less profitable than their other businesses in 2 years is still damn profitable and they won't kill that off.



    Sebastian
  • Reply 14 of 127
    backtomacbacktomac Posts: 4,579member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Slewis View Post


    OK, so what you are suggesting is that Apple will take the potentially less profitable Mac sales in 2 years and make it even less profitable just so people can run OS X on a Dell?



    Less profitable than their other businesses in 2 years is still damn profitable and they won't kill that off.



    Sebastian





    Computers are a maturing business. Maybe other areas that Apple ventures into will become a bigger part of Apple's business without Apple 'killing off' the computer business. It may then be less of a risk for Apple to liscense OSX.
  • Reply 15 of 127
    mr. memr. me Posts: 3,219member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by backtomac View Post


    Computers are a maturing business. Maybe other areas that Apple ventures into will become a bigger part of Apple's business without Apple 'killing off' the computer business. It may then be less of a risk for Apple to liscense OSX.



    The personal computer business has been mature for years. Mature or not, this does not create a business case for licensing the OS to other hardware vendors. What you see is Apple's expanding its hardware business beyond the narrow confines of laptop, desktop, and server computers. The iPhone and ?TV are two cases in point. We can expect to see Apple to venture into other markets. We cannot expect to see Apple license MacOS X to eMachines.
  • Reply 16 of 127
    backtomacbacktomac Posts: 4,579member
    Well I've been playing devil's advocate with Slewis for several posts. Originally Murch said he couldn't see Apple licensing OSX because of support headaches and costs. I still feel that that wouldn't be the reason as Apple would require the hardware vendor to troubleshoot these problems like it works in the windows world. The main reason I see this not happening is lost hardware sales. But if hardware sales become less of Apple's revenue then it would become more likely.
  • Reply 17 of 127
    mr. memr. me Posts: 3,219member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by backtomac View Post


    ... The main reason I see this not happening is lost hardware sales. ...



    Decreased hardware sales. Increased software support costs. The move would burn Apple's candle on both ends.
  • Reply 18 of 127
    I think the question is, who the hell would get a license for OS X? Not Dell, certainly; Jobs hates Michael Dell and the whole company, often dragging their computers on stage as examples of poor design and poor product. Can you see Jobs getting up on that stage and saying "ladies and gentlemen, the latest Mac notebook" as he whips a fugly Dell from under a black cloth? Nah, neither can I.



    Licensing OS X for use on your run-of-the-mill desktop would be devestating for Apple; burning the candle at both ends, as has been said. Plus, OS X wouldn't look right on a Dell. Maybe this is just the fanboy in me but a Mac is a complete experience, and I don't think the Mac experience would be anywhere comparable on even the best-made laptop Dell has to offer.
  • Reply 19 of 127
    irelandireland Posts: 17,538member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by TednDi View Post


    In a word.



    No.



    Next question.



    There might come a point in time when you eat that word.
  • Reply 20 of 127
    backtomacbacktomac Posts: 4,579member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Mr. Me View Post


    Increased software support costs. .



    See this is where I disagree. Apple would push that onto the vendor who made the computer. If you buy a Dell and have a problem you call Dell not Microsoft. That wouldn't deter Apple.
Sign In or Register to comment.