Macs and PCs have reached a point where the machines and users are very different. Apple is neither perfect nor for everything. There are also very good reasons for choosing a computer company other than Apple. It most cases it is NOT some kind of ignorance. Apple is for users who prefer something that is more aesthetically pleasing. They are willing to make significant sacrifices in terms of both function and price to get it. A lot of users are not willing to give up either. All in one iMacs with integrated may look better, but the they are far more expensive and less practical than a conroe based ATX tower. Forcing the user to be either stuck with a machine that does not suit his or her needs or move up to a workstation is completely unreasonable. Mac OS X is a superior operating system with universal appeal. Apple is a premium niche company that caters to a specific clientèle. To use the dreaded car apology, BMW buyers will not buy a Chevy just because they also run on gasoline. On the flip side, if BMW were to come up with a practical H2 solution and keep it to themselves, don't expect H2 BMWs to replace too many Chevys. That being said, it has to be done in a way that moves things forward. PS/2 ports, parallel ports, VGA connections, and BIOS are things of the past and have no place in the future.
Macs and PCs have reached a point where the machines and users are very different. Apple is neither perfect nor for everything. There are also very good reasons for choosing a computer company other than Apple. It most cases it is NOT some kind of ignorance. Apple is for users who prefer something that is more aesthetically pleasing. They are willing to make significant sacrifices in terms of both function and price to get it. A lot of users are not willing to give up either. All in one iMacs with integrated may look better, but the they are far more expensive and less practical than a conroe based ATX tower. Forcing the user to be either stuck with a machine that does not suit his or her needs or move up to a workstation is completely unreasonable. Mac OS X is a superior operating system with universal appeal. Apple is a premium niche company that caters to a specific clientèle. To use the dreaded car apology, BMW buyers will not buy a Chevy just because they also run on gasoline. On the flip side, if BMW were to come up with a practical H2 solution and keep it to themselves, don't expect H2 BMWs to replace too many Chevys. That being said, it has to be done in a way that moves things forward. PS/2 ports, parallel ports, VGA connections, and BIOS are things of the past and have no place in the future.
I'm not saying you're missing the point, but if Apple licences OS X they could stick with a couple of other hardware companies. They could start off with Sony, and maybe add one of two more over a couple of years. My guess is Apple wouldn't licence Mac OS X to all PC makers, only a select few, they would have strict guidelines for those companies too - like you cannot sell a product running OS X under such a price etc. People automatically think if Apple licenced OS X they would licence it too all PC makers, an all or nothing type situation, but I think they would do more along the lines of a some or nothing. Overnight it would be like Apple saying; "we think these two PC makers make the best PC's besides us, and that's why we chose to go with them". It would be as if Apple were saying the rest of the PC makers are crap, the public might begin to tune in to that too, which would only help Apple.
Apple is not competing for the Operating System market. They are selling their own hardware using the OS as their main selling point. 2 completely different worlds.
Apple can't compete with a monopoly. Apple is currently being forced to keep the Mac OS in-house. That's the only way Apple has been able to keep Mac OS alive. There isn't enough market for the Mac OS at this time. So yea, Apple does not compete, it is trying to get to a point where it can.
I'm not saying you're missing the point, but if Apple licences OS X they could stick with a couple of other hardware companies. They could start off with Sony, and maybe add one of two more over a couple of years. My guess is Apple wouldn't licence Mac OS X to all PC makers, only a select few, they would have strict guidelines for those companies too - like you cannot sell a product running OS X under such a price etc. People automatically think if Apple licenced OS X they would licence it too all PC makers, an all or nothing type situation, but I think they would do more along the lines of a some or nothing. Overnight it would be like Apple saying; "we think these two PC makers make the best PC's besides us, and that's why we chose to go with them". It would be as if Apple were saying the rest of the PC makers are crap, the public might begin to tune in to that too, which would only help Apple.
That would be another version of the same mistake spindler made. When you try to protect against losing users that you already have firmly in your, pocket, you're usually the one who loses. Apple and Sony have similar hardware philosophies and similar user groups. They're also on the smaller end of the major PC companies list. The idea would be to open the platform, not keep it for rich snobby elitists in the creative arts fields. Apple has nothing to fear from the HPs, Dells, and Gateways of the world. They offer little traditional Mac users would be interested in. Likewise traditional value users, business customers, and prosumers are not likely to find what they want in Apple's lineup.
I'm not saying you're missing the point, but if Apple licences OS X they could stick with a couple of other hardware companies. They could start off with Sony, and maybe add one of two more over a couple of years. My guess is Apple wouldn't licence Mac OS X to all PC makers, only a select few, they would have strict guidelines for those companies too - like you cannot sell a product running OS X under such a price etc. People automatically think if Apple licenced OS X they would licence it too all PC makers, an all or nothing type situation, but I think they would do more along the lines of a some or nothing. Overnight it would be like Apple saying; "we think these two PC makers make the best PC's besides us, and that's why we chose to go with them". It would be as if Apple were saying the rest of the PC makers are crap, the public might begin to tune in to that too, which would only help Apple.
In other words, the same thing that you've been saying in this whole thread and the same thing I have been countering in this entire thread.
Quote:
Originally Posted by iPeon
Apple can't compete with a monopoly. Apple is currently being forced to keep the Mac OS in-house. That's the only way Apple has been able to keep Mac OS alive. There isn't enough market for the Mac OS at this time. So yea, Apple does not compete, it is trying to get to a point where it can.
Newsflash. Windows isn't Apple's real competition.
If you own a fruit market and the guy next door sells vegetables, are they competition or do they sell 2 different things?
Apple: Hardware Company
Microsoft: Software Company
Get the Idea?
Apple isn't out for the most market share, they care more about profit margins really, and whether they make great products (ok, Steve Jobs is probably the only exec there who I truly believe believes in making great products and that's mostly from what I read in iCon oh and Ive too I guess since his job is design, Apple's CFO really needs to get his head out of Steve's Keynote though) or not.
Mac OS X=Main Selling point of the Mac
iLife=Another selling point of the Mac
Meanwhile Dell and Sony are stuck recommending some version of Windows because in truth, that's all they can recommend. GNU/Linux [Insert Distribution of choice] is Mediocre and Apple plans to keep the main selling point of their HARDWARE. It doesn't matter how much Marketshare Mac OS X actually has because it's doing damn well when you consider most of the PC market is old outdated systems, and the majority of them are huge volumes of Corporate Desktops that goes for the cheapest system possible.
That would be another version of the same mistake spindler made. When you try to protect against losing users that you already have firmly in your, pocket, you're usually the one who loses. Apple and Sony have similar hardware philosophies and similar user groups. They're also on the smaller end of the major PC companies list. The idea would be to open the platform, not keep it for rich snobby elitists in the creative arts fields. Apple has nothing to fear from the HPs, Dells, and Gateways of the world. They offer little traditional Mac users would be interested in. Likewise traditional value users, business customers, and prosumers are not likely to find what they want in Apple's lineup.
Another way of looking at it is if this did happen people who want to use OS X would have more choice than they currently have now. They wouldn't have to go with Apple hardware to use OS X. Let's face it, there's no world that's going to have Apple LOGO's on every PC on every desk everywhere, not that I wouldn't enjoy that world - it's just that it's not going to happen. Say if people had a choice of HP, Sony or Apple. If all three hardware companies used OS X, that would be more choice. I know there's some people out there who would never buy Apple hardware for one reason or another that would be quite happy to buy a Sony or a HP with OS X. I would welcome it if Apple opened OS X to a select few PC makers, I would still buy Apple hardware cause I think it's the best out there. Apple's brand would only grow. People who liked OS X on a Sony or a HP would absolutely consider Apple hardware for their next computer, I'm sure of it.
Quote:
Not keep it for rich snobby elitists in the creative arts fields.
Macs and PCs have reached a point where the machines and users are very different. Apple is neither perfect nor for everything. There are also very good reasons for choosing a computer company other than Apple. It most cases it is NOT some kind of ignorance. Apple is for users who prefer something that is more aesthetically pleasing. They are willing to make significant sacrifices in terms of both function and price to get it. A lot of users are not willing to give up either. All in one iMacs with integrated may look better, but the they are far more expensive and less practical than a conroe based ATX tower. Forcing the user to be either stuck with a machine that does not suit his or her needs or move up to a workstation is completely unreasonable. Mac OS X is a superior operating system with universal appeal. Apple is a premium niche company that caters to a specific clientèle. To use the dreaded car apology, BMW buyers will not buy a Chevy just because they also run on gasoline. On the flip side, if BMW were to come up with a practical H2 solution and keep it to themselves, don't expect H2 BMWs to replace too many Chevys. That being said, it has to be done in a way that moves things forward. PS/2 ports, parallel ports, VGA connections, and BIOS are things of the past and have no place in the future.
I'm sorry, but this is not really true anymore.[/QUOTE]
When was it ever true, I have been in the print game for ni on 20 years and ALL the plaxes I have worked used macs for production and PC for admin, does this mean that as a professional production person I am somehow rich or a snob.
Generalisations are the worst form of conversation.
Quote by BenRoethig - "The idea would be to open the platform, not keep it for rich snobby elitists in the creative arts fields. "
What on earth do you mean by this?
haha I must have missed that quote when I read his post.
No it's not for snobby elitists, it's because it's the main selling point of Apple's computers and they don't plan to shoot themselves in the foot just so people can run it on competing hardware so it won't seem like it's for "snobby elitists"
Here's why I think Apple will never license OS X - if a lower-cost, reliable, reasonably attractive notebook hit the market running OS X, with comparable features to a MacBook or MacBook Pro, I'm not sure I could justify spending the money on the "real McCoy" MacBook Pro (that I am positively chomping at the bit to buy as soon as Leopard drops). As much as I'd want the real thing, if the licensed notebook did the trick I'd probably consider it very carefully indeed.
Take that situation and multiply it thousands of times over, especially at the low price point, where people who want to try OS X without having to buy a Mac Mini will inevitably be drawn in. So no matter how expensive those non-Mac licenses are, they're still only making £40/50/60/100 as opposed to the £1500 I'm willing to spend on a MacBook Pro. And I don't think they'd sell enough "Not Mac" Macs to justify the loss of people who don't need their hardware, because OS X is still a niche operating system.
They're still picking up plenty of switchers; 50% of all people who bought a Mac this year had never bought a Mac before, right? They're doing alright with their own hardware, they're not going to risk killing Mac OS X - and therefore their own hardware business - by licensing it out to Joe PC Maker down the road.
Here's why I think Apple will never license OS X - if a lower-cost, reliable, reasonably attractive notebook hit the market running OS X, with comparable features to a MacBook or MacBook Pro, I'm not sure I could justify spending the money on the "real McCoy" MacBook Pro (that I am positively chomping at the bit to buy as soon as Leopard drops). As much as I'd want the real thing, if the licensed notebook did the trick I'd probably consider it very carefully indeed.
All the comparitve Pro notebooks are actually more expensive than the MacBook Pro itself. Apple is they wanted to could also only licence it two a few PC makers and charge them a premium for each licence.
For you personally, probably nothing because that's what you want. For the average PC user or consumer, you're looking a a single notebook optical drive that's half as fast as the full size optical drives, a single hard drive bay, only 2GB of practical RAM (3GB you have to mortgage your house), no card reader, a fixed mobile graphics chipset that can't be upgraded at all unless you go with the 24" model, and pretty much a complete lack of expansion. The iMac is the ultimate set up and go computer. Unfortunately, most of those users are well below its price point. The ones at it price point usually require a degree of future proofing.
Another way of looking at it is if this did happen people who want to use OS X would have more choice than they currently have now. They wouldn't have to go with Apple hardware to use OS X. Let's face it, there's no world that's going to have Apple LOGO's on every PC on every desk everywhere, not that I wouldn't enjoy that world - it's just that it's not going to happen. Say if people had a choice of HP, Sony or Apple. If all three hardware companies used OS X, that would be more choice. I know there's some people out there who would never buy Apple hardware for one reason or another that would be quite happy to buy a Sony or a HP with OS X. I would welcome it if Apple opened OS X to a select few PC makers, I would still buy Apple hardware cause I think it's the best out there. Apple's brand would only grow. People who liked OS X on a Sony or a HP would absolutely consider Apple hardware for their next computer, I'm sure of it.
That's the way I see it.
Quote:
I'm sorry, but this is not really true anymore.
From what I've seen it's a lot more true today than it was 15 years ago when I joined the Mac ranks.
Here's why I think Apple will never license OS X - if a lower-cost, reliable, reasonably attractive notebook hit the market running OS X, with comparable features to a MacBook or MacBook Pro, I'm not sure I could justify spending the money on the "real McCoy" MacBook Pro (that I am positively chomping at the bit to buy as soon as Leopard drops). As much as I'd want the real thing, if the licensed notebook did the trick I'd probably consider it very carefully indeed.
Comparable features, yes. Comparable weight and portability no. Apple is in the premium thin and light sector with the Macbook. They are more expensive than the PC desktop replacements because of engineering costs to shave off that extra half an inch and pound while retaining the same basic functionality. As for the Macbook, it's really the only ultra portable aimed at the consumer market. The 12.1 and 13.3 models other companies maker are usually much more expensive.
Quote:
Take that situation and multiply it thousands of times over, especially at the low price point, where people who want to try OS X without having to buy a Mac Mini will inevitably be drawn in. So no matter how expensive those non-Mac licenses are, they're still only making £40/50/60/100 as opposed to the £1500 I'm willing to spend on a MacBook Pro. And I don't think they'd sell enough "Not Mac" Macs to justify the loss of people who don't need their hardware, because OS X is still a niche operating system.
Actually, they'd be making the money off the licensing fees instead of Microsoft. How many Mac users do you honestly know (besides the prosumer which Apple almost seems to be trying to alienate) that would give up their Apple hardware. The Mac Vs. PC scenario plays out every day. Most of the time the Mac loses because the hardware is either too rich for their blood or doesn't quite meet what they want in a computer. Mac OS X is not a niche operating system, it's general purpose with a lot of appeal. In fact, you more or less have to buy a Mac Pro to see how much better it as than windows at their own game.
Quote:
They're still picking up plenty of switchers; 50% of all people who bought a Mac this year had never bought a Mac before, right? They're doing alright with their own hardware, they're not going to risk killing Mac OS X - and therefore their own hardware business - by licensing it out to Joe PC Maker down the road.
Remember, Apple and those switcher are still a very small percent of total computer sales. There are still close to 19 of them for everyone of us.
All the comparitve Pro notebooks are actually more expensive than the MacBook Pro itself. Apple is they wanted to could also only licence it two a few PC makers and charge them a premium for each licence.
Yes, they can charge a HUGE premium while Windows would be licensed to them at next to nothing!
Your perspective that every Microsoft OEM on the planet is DYING to use Mac OS X so much that they will pay any amount of money to do so is flawed. Windows is working well for their respective businesses, it certainly makes them enough money anyways.
Either way, Apple's still not going to license it.
Your perspective that every Microsoft OEM on the planet is DYING to use Mac OS X so much that they will pay any amount of money to do so is flawed. Windows is working well for their respective businesses, it certainly makes them enough money anyways.
Either way, Apple's still not going to license it.
Sebastian
Don't kid yourself. Many pc vendors would love to build Mac boxes. Mac users tend to buy higher level machines, not the $399 boxes that windows users only seem to buy. If you think pc vedors are rolling in the money perhaps you should look at Dell and Gateway. Hell IBM gave up and sold out. It's not as great a business as one might think.
For you personally, probably nothing because that's what you want. For the average PC user or consumer, you're looking a a single notebook optical drive that's half as fast as the full size optical drives, a single hard drive bay, only 2GB of practical RAM (3GB you have to mortgage your house), no card reader, a fixed mobile graphics chipset that can't be upgraded at all unless you go with the 24" model, and pretty much a complete lack of expansion. The iMac is the ultimate set up and go computer. Unfortunately, most of those users are well below its price point. The ones at it price point usually require a degree of future proofing.
And the average PC user or consumer (not gamer) cares about those things why????????? The price is actually only a perception issue. When I set up my friends with a cheap PC (not home built because that really excludes the 'average PC user or consumer') by the time the added the spyware and virus protection and other software that they 'needed' based on advice from other PC users, they were only a $100 or so less than the equivalent iMac. They'd taken up weeks to get things up a running and they are constantly fighting with the virus software and calling about 'what's this pop up mean' etc. In the end they admit they didn't same anything.
Comments
Macs and PCs have reached a point where the machines and users are very different. Apple is neither perfect nor for everything. There are also very good reasons for choosing a computer company other than Apple. It most cases it is NOT some kind of ignorance. Apple is for users who prefer something that is more aesthetically pleasing. They are willing to make significant sacrifices in terms of both function and price to get it. A lot of users are not willing to give up either. All in one iMacs with integrated may look better, but the they are far more expensive and less practical than a conroe based ATX tower. Forcing the user to be either stuck with a machine that does not suit his or her needs or move up to a workstation is completely unreasonable. Mac OS X is a superior operating system with universal appeal. Apple is a premium niche company that caters to a specific clientèle. To use the dreaded car apology, BMW buyers will not buy a Chevy just because they also run on gasoline. On the flip side, if BMW were to come up with a practical H2 solution and keep it to themselves, don't expect H2 BMWs to replace too many Chevys. That being said, it has to be done in a way that moves things forward. PS/2 ports, parallel ports, VGA connections, and BIOS are things of the past and have no place in the future.
I'm not saying you're missing the point, but if Apple licences OS X they could stick with a couple of other hardware companies. They could start off with Sony, and maybe add one of two more over a couple of years. My guess is Apple wouldn't licence Mac OS X to all PC makers, only a select few, they would have strict guidelines for those companies too - like you cannot sell a product running OS X under such a price etc. People automatically think if Apple licenced OS X they would licence it too all PC makers, an all or nothing type situation, but I think they would do more along the lines of a some or nothing. Overnight it would be like Apple saying; "we think these two PC makers make the best PC's besides us, and that's why we chose to go with them". It would be as if Apple were saying the rest of the PC makers are crap, the public might begin to tune in to that too, which would only help Apple.
Apple is not competing for the Operating System market. They are selling their own hardware using the OS as their main selling point. 2 completely different worlds.
Apple can't compete with a monopoly. Apple is currently being forced to keep the Mac OS in-house. That's the only way Apple has been able to keep Mac OS alive. There isn't enough market for the Mac OS at this time. So yea, Apple does not compete, it is trying to get to a point where it can.
I'm not saying you're missing the point, but if Apple licences OS X they could stick with a couple of other hardware companies. They could start off with Sony, and maybe add one of two more over a couple of years. My guess is Apple wouldn't licence Mac OS X to all PC makers, only a select few, they would have strict guidelines for those companies too - like you cannot sell a product running OS X under such a price etc. People automatically think if Apple licenced OS X they would licence it too all PC makers, an all or nothing type situation, but I think they would do more along the lines of a some or nothing. Overnight it would be like Apple saying; "we think these two PC makers make the best PC's besides us, and that's why we chose to go with them". It would be as if Apple were saying the rest of the PC makers are crap, the public might begin to tune in to that too, which would only help Apple.
That would be another version of the same mistake spindler made. When you try to protect against losing users that you already have firmly in your, pocket, you're usually the one who loses. Apple and Sony have similar hardware philosophies and similar user groups. They're also on the smaller end of the major PC companies list. The idea would be to open the platform, not keep it for rich snobby elitists in the creative arts fields. Apple has nothing to fear from the HPs, Dells, and Gateways of the world. They offer little traditional Mac users would be interested in. Likewise traditional value users, business customers, and prosumers are not likely to find what they want in Apple's lineup.
I'm not saying you're missing the point, but if Apple licences OS X they could stick with a couple of other hardware companies. They could start off with Sony, and maybe add one of two more over a couple of years. My guess is Apple wouldn't licence Mac OS X to all PC makers, only a select few, they would have strict guidelines for those companies too - like you cannot sell a product running OS X under such a price etc. People automatically think if Apple licenced OS X they would licence it too all PC makers, an all or nothing type situation, but I think they would do more along the lines of a some or nothing. Overnight it would be like Apple saying; "we think these two PC makers make the best PC's besides us, and that's why we chose to go with them". It would be as if Apple were saying the rest of the PC makers are crap, the public might begin to tune in to that too, which would only help Apple.
In other words, the same thing that you've been saying in this whole thread and the same thing I have been countering in this entire thread.
Apple can't compete with a monopoly. Apple is currently being forced to keep the Mac OS in-house. That's the only way Apple has been able to keep Mac OS alive. There isn't enough market for the Mac OS at this time. So yea, Apple does not compete, it is trying to get to a point where it can.
Newsflash. Windows isn't Apple's real competition.
If you own a fruit market and the guy next door sells vegetables, are they competition or do they sell 2 different things?
Apple: Hardware Company
Microsoft: Software Company
Get the Idea?
Apple isn't out for the most market share, they care more about profit margins really, and whether they make great products (ok, Steve Jobs is probably the only exec there who I truly believe believes in making great products and that's mostly from what I read in iCon
Mac OS X=Main Selling point of the Mac
iLife=Another selling point of the Mac
Meanwhile Dell and Sony are stuck recommending some version of Windows because in truth, that's all they can recommend. GNU/Linux [Insert Distribution of choice] is Mediocre and Apple plans to keep the main selling point of their HARDWARE. It doesn't matter how much Marketshare Mac OS X actually has because it's doing damn well when you consider most of the PC market is old outdated systems, and the majority of them are huge volumes of Corporate Desktops that goes for the cheapest system possible.
Sebastian
That would be another version of the same mistake spindler made. When you try to protect against losing users that you already have firmly in your, pocket, you're usually the one who loses. Apple and Sony have similar hardware philosophies and similar user groups. They're also on the smaller end of the major PC companies list. The idea would be to open the platform, not keep it for rich snobby elitists in the creative arts fields. Apple has nothing to fear from the HPs, Dells, and Gateways of the world. They offer little traditional Mac users would be interested in. Likewise traditional value users, business customers, and prosumers are not likely to find what they want in Apple's lineup.
Another way of looking at it is if this did happen people who want to use OS X would have more choice than they currently have now. They wouldn't have to go with Apple hardware to use OS X. Let's face it, there's no world that's going to have Apple LOGO's on every PC on every desk everywhere, not that I wouldn't enjoy that world - it's just that it's not going to happen. Say if people had a choice of HP, Sony or Apple. If all three hardware companies used OS X, that would be more choice. I know there's some people out there who would never buy Apple hardware for one reason or another that would be quite happy to buy a Sony or a HP with OS X. I would welcome it if Apple opened OS X to a select few PC makers, I would still buy Apple hardware cause I think it's the best out there. Apple's brand would only grow. People who liked OS X on a Sony or a HP would absolutely consider Apple hardware for their next computer, I'm sure of it.
Not keep it for rich snobby elitists in the creative arts fields.
I'm sorry, but this is not really true anymore.
Macs and PCs have reached a point where the machines and users are very different. Apple is neither perfect nor for everything. There are also very good reasons for choosing a computer company other than Apple. It most cases it is NOT some kind of ignorance. Apple is for users who prefer something that is more aesthetically pleasing. They are willing to make significant sacrifices in terms of both function and price to get it. A lot of users are not willing to give up either. All in one iMacs with integrated may look better, but the they are far more expensive and less practical than a conroe based ATX tower. Forcing the user to be either stuck with a machine that does not suit his or her needs or move up to a workstation is completely unreasonable. Mac OS X is a superior operating system with universal appeal. Apple is a premium niche company that caters to a specific clientèle. To use the dreaded car apology, BMW buyers will not buy a Chevy just because they also run on gasoline. On the flip side, if BMW were to come up with a practical H2 solution and keep it to themselves, don't expect H2 BMWs to replace too many Chevys. That being said, it has to be done in a way that moves things forward. PS/2 ports, parallel ports, VGA connections, and BIOS are things of the past and have no place in the future.
What have I sacrificed by buying an iMac?
What on earth do you mean by this?
I'm sorry, but this is not really true anymore.[/QUOTE]
When was it ever true, I have been in the print game for ni on 20 years and ALL the plaxes I have worked used macs for production and PC for admin, does this mean that as a professional production person I am somehow rich or a snob.
Generalisations are the worst form of conversation.
Quote by BenRoethig - "The idea would be to open the platform, not keep it for rich snobby elitists in the creative arts fields. "
What on earth do you mean by this?
haha I must have missed that quote when I read his post.
No it's not for snobby elitists, it's because it's the main selling point of Apple's computers and they don't plan to shoot themselves in the foot just so people can run it on competing hardware so it won't seem like it's for "snobby elitists"
Sebastian
Take that situation and multiply it thousands of times over, especially at the low price point, where people who want to try OS X without having to buy a Mac Mini will inevitably be drawn in. So no matter how expensive those non-Mac licenses are, they're still only making £40/50/60/100 as opposed to the £1500 I'm willing to spend on a MacBook Pro. And I don't think they'd sell enough "Not Mac" Macs to justify the loss of people who don't need their hardware, because OS X is still a niche operating system.
They're still picking up plenty of switchers; 50% of all people who bought a Mac this year had never bought a Mac before, right? They're doing alright with their own hardware, they're not going to risk killing Mac OS X - and therefore their own hardware business - by licensing it out to Joe PC Maker down the road.
Here's why I think Apple will never license OS X - if a lower-cost, reliable, reasonably attractive notebook hit the market running OS X, with comparable features to a MacBook or MacBook Pro, I'm not sure I could justify spending the money on the "real McCoy" MacBook Pro (that I am positively chomping at the bit to buy as soon as Leopard drops). As much as I'd want the real thing, if the licensed notebook did the trick I'd probably consider it very carefully indeed.
All the comparitve Pro notebooks are actually more expensive than the MacBook Pro itself. Apple is they wanted to could also only licence it two a few PC makers and charge them a premium for each licence.
What have I sacrificed by buying an iMac?
For you personally, probably nothing because that's what you want. For the average PC user or consumer, you're looking a a single notebook optical drive that's half as fast as the full size optical drives, a single hard drive bay, only 2GB of practical RAM (3GB you have to mortgage your house), no card reader, a fixed mobile graphics chipset that can't be upgraded at all unless you go with the 24" model, and pretty much a complete lack of expansion. The iMac is the ultimate set up and go computer. Unfortunately, most of those users are well below its price point. The ones at it price point usually require a degree of future proofing.
Another way of looking at it is if this did happen people who want to use OS X would have more choice than they currently have now. They wouldn't have to go with Apple hardware to use OS X. Let's face it, there's no world that's going to have Apple LOGO's on every PC on every desk everywhere, not that I wouldn't enjoy that world - it's just that it's not going to happen. Say if people had a choice of HP, Sony or Apple. If all three hardware companies used OS X, that would be more choice. I know there's some people out there who would never buy Apple hardware for one reason or another that would be quite happy to buy a Sony or a HP with OS X. I would welcome it if Apple opened OS X to a select few PC makers, I would still buy Apple hardware cause I think it's the best out there. Apple's brand would only grow. People who liked OS X on a Sony or a HP would absolutely consider Apple hardware for their next computer, I'm sure of it.
That's the way I see it.
I'm sorry, but this is not really true anymore.
From what I've seen it's a lot more true today than it was 15 years ago when I joined the Mac ranks.
Here's why I think Apple will never license OS X - if a lower-cost, reliable, reasonably attractive notebook hit the market running OS X, with comparable features to a MacBook or MacBook Pro, I'm not sure I could justify spending the money on the "real McCoy" MacBook Pro (that I am positively chomping at the bit to buy as soon as Leopard drops). As much as I'd want the real thing, if the licensed notebook did the trick I'd probably consider it very carefully indeed.
Comparable features, yes. Comparable weight and portability no. Apple is in the premium thin and light sector with the Macbook. They are more expensive than the PC desktop replacements because of engineering costs to shave off that extra half an inch and pound while retaining the same basic functionality. As for the Macbook, it's really the only ultra portable aimed at the consumer market. The 12.1 and 13.3 models other companies maker are usually much more expensive.
Take that situation and multiply it thousands of times over, especially at the low price point, where people who want to try OS X without having to buy a Mac Mini will inevitably be drawn in. So no matter how expensive those non-Mac licenses are, they're still only making £40/50/60/100 as opposed to the £1500 I'm willing to spend on a MacBook Pro. And I don't think they'd sell enough "Not Mac" Macs to justify the loss of people who don't need their hardware, because OS X is still a niche operating system.
Actually, they'd be making the money off the licensing fees instead of Microsoft. How many Mac users do you honestly know (besides the prosumer which Apple almost seems to be trying to alienate) that would give up their Apple hardware. The Mac Vs. PC scenario plays out every day. Most of the time the Mac loses because the hardware is either too rich for their blood or doesn't quite meet what they want in a computer. Mac OS X is not a niche operating system, it's general purpose with a lot of appeal. In fact, you more or less have to buy a Mac Pro to see how much better it as than windows at their own game.
They're still picking up plenty of switchers; 50% of all people who bought a Mac this year had never bought a Mac before, right? They're doing alright with their own hardware, they're not going to risk killing Mac OS X - and therefore their own hardware business - by licensing it out to Joe PC Maker down the road.
Remember, Apple and those switcher are still a very small percent of total computer sales. There are still close to 19 of them for everyone of us.
All the comparitve Pro notebooks are actually more expensive than the MacBook Pro itself. Apple is they wanted to could also only licence it two a few PC makers and charge them a premium for each licence.
Yes, they can charge a HUGE premium while Windows would be licensed to them at next to nothing!
Sebastian
Yes, they can charge a HUGE premium while Windows would be licensed to them at next to nothing!
What's your point.
What's your point.
Your perspective that every Microsoft OEM on the planet is DYING to use Mac OS X so much that they will pay any amount of money to do so is flawed. Windows is working well for their respective businesses, it certainly makes them enough money anyways.
Either way, Apple's still not going to license it.
Sebastian
Your perspective that every Microsoft OEM on the planet is DYING to use Mac OS X so much that they will pay any amount of money to do so is flawed. Windows is working well for their respective businesses, it certainly makes them enough money anyways.
Either way, Apple's still not going to license it.
Sebastian
Don't kid yourself. Many pc vendors would love to build Mac boxes. Mac users tend to buy higher level machines, not the $399 boxes that windows users only seem to buy. If you think pc vedors are rolling in the money perhaps you should look at Dell and Gateway. Hell IBM gave up and sold out. It's not as great a business as one might think.
For you personally, probably nothing because that's what you want. For the average PC user or consumer, you're looking a a single notebook optical drive that's half as fast as the full size optical drives, a single hard drive bay, only 2GB of practical RAM (3GB you have to mortgage your house), no card reader, a fixed mobile graphics chipset that can't be upgraded at all unless you go with the 24" model, and pretty much a complete lack of expansion. The iMac is the ultimate set up and go computer. Unfortunately, most of those users are well below its price point. The ones at it price point usually require a degree of future proofing.
And the average PC user or consumer (not gamer) cares about those things why????????? The price is actually only a perception issue. When I set up my friends with a cheap PC (not home built because that really excludes the 'average PC user or consumer') by the time the added the spyware and virus protection and other software that they 'needed' based on advice from other PC users, they were only a $100 or so less than the equivalent iMac. They'd taken up weeks to get things up a running and they are constantly fighting with the virus software and calling about 'what's this pop up mean' etc. In the end they admit they didn't same anything.