What about an App Store for standard Mac applications and games? I believe it has been mentioned before but not in this thread. However, I don't know really if that would qualify as something that "obvious" and "jaw-dropping" as this rumor tells about...
I can't believe people are still discussing this as a possibility - OSX on generic Windows hardware.
This is not going to happen. Not unless Apple is short of going bust.
Steve Jobs was there once and has done exactly that with NeXT. NeXT was a hardware/software company not unlike Apple and when NeXT hardware didn't sell too well (they were just too expensive compared to generic PC hardware), Jobs had the OS port to generic Intel Hardware and tried to sell NeXTStep as an alternative to Windows and OS/2.
It didn't work. In fact it made matters worse.
Two reasons:
1.) Many 'home users' don't actually pay for OS licenses.
People just use the OS that comes pre-installed, and never bother to upgrade.
Alternatively they know a friend of a friend who has a copy (or download it off the Internet).
So not much money to be made here...
2.) Business users are notoriously sluggish in regards to change. It takes ages for them to even consider, let alone test and install, any new OS. It will be years, if not a decade, until any OSX would have a chance there.
So not much money to be made here either...
On the flip side, many current Mac buyers will simply opt for other hardware - as choice is good. They will buy DELL, Sony, HP, Acer or OQO hardware and install OSX on it.
With the dire result that Apple suddenly only sells a single copy of OSX to these users - instead of a whole piece of hardware.
So a lot of money to be lost here...
Those were the reasons NeXT nearly went under and had to be sold to Apple back in the late 1980ies.
And I hope Steve Jobs learnt his lesson and will never even consider turning OSX into an operating system for the 'generic PC' market.
The moment this happens, OSX will have sealed its fate and 5-10 years later it will be no more.
Apple should (and will) only do this if they
a) have no other choice, as a last ditch effort to save Apple from going bankrupt or
b) no longer care about Mac OSX and just want to eek out a few more software sales.
The reason why Apple applied for an 'OSX' trademark is very likely the introduction of a new set of devices, tablets perhaps, Internet terminals or netbooks running the iPod/iPhone variant of OSX, which is technically not a 'Mac OSX' but simply 'OSX'.
So we could buy OSX and install it on a PC? Like what some geeks are already doing.
Sure it would hurt mac sales but wouldn't huge OS sales offset that?
Apple's business model is built around making money on the hardware. That's why a) they have very lax piracy protection, and b) they sell the OS for so cheap.
In order for the OS X on PC's to work, they would have to a) raise the price, and more importantly b) have a large business base (business don't pirate like consumers do.)
With Windows, for example, the percentage of consumers that go out and buy new versions of the OS is extremely low. New Windows gets legally distributed by company IT depts rolling out upgrades, and on new computers sold to consumers.
(Besides which Steve Jobs isn't dead yet- the chances he'd bring back the clone business, giving the history is pretty low.)
What about an App Store for standard Mac applications and games? I believe it has been mentioned before but not in this thread. However, I don't know really if that would qualify as something that "obvious" and "jaw-dropping" as this rumor tells about...
App store for iPhone only works because it is the only easily available, supported method for getting apps on the iPhone. If there was another way that was just as easy for everyone, and that Apple allowed, the App store would no longer be any good.
Therefore that would never work on OS X in its current condition.
haha, beat me to it, Hobbit. The only thing I'd add to your history lesson is that Apple was also licensing the OS to clones when Steve Jobs rejoined the company- one of the first things he did to get it back on track was to kill that policy.
The reason that business model works for Microsoft is because of their near-monopoly in the business segment, their close relationships with manufacturers (kind of like the relationship loan sharks have with their clients), and their huge market share advantage. If any one of those things slips significantly, Microsoft would have serious problems paying for themselves as well. (And I guess Microsoft also has a LOT of niche and not so niche software products besides the OS that can more than pay for themselves, again with an emphasis on their control of business market)
He he meelash! Might have beat you to it, but I think you expressed it better.
The problem with 'OSX on generic Intel hardware' is that this strategy has a lot of risks, with the majority of possible outcomes being Apple going bankrupt.
And history has a tendency to repeat itself, so better learn from it and don't do the same mistakes twice.
Even if Apple would limit OSX only to a handful of 'blessed' hardware manufacturers, we end up with the same situation that we had in the days of the Mac clones.
And as meelash pointed out - that didn't work either.
Apple just lost too many hardware sales, which is still 50% of its business.
I can see this happen though, many years from now, in a time when desktop PCs and notebooks are used by businesses only while the vast majority of home users have just mobile devices which dock into a bigger screen + keyboard at home.
At that point, when Apple like all other PC manufacturers focuses their traditional (Mac) hardware on the business market, Mac OSX could be sold as a separate software product, if Apple chooses to slowly exit the business hardware production.
Hopefully this is the end of that idea in this thread!
App store for iPhone only works because it is the only easily available, supported method for getting apps on the iPhone. If there was another way that was just as easy for everyone, and that Apple allowed, the App store would no longer be any good.
Therefore that would never work on OS X in its current condition.
I'm not too sure I agree with this.
The only problem I see with a Mac app store is that it wouldn't have the breadth of the iPhone app store because iPhone are cross platform.
If I was a developer I don't think I'd mind having a centralized marketplace for my app that handles the bandwidth and financial transactions.
Though a Mac app store would have to offer demos, license conflict resolution and other things. That makes it a bit trickier.
The only problem I see with a Mac app store is that it wouldn't have the breadth of the iPhone app store because iPhone are cross platform.
If I was a developer I don't think I'd mind having a centralized marketplace for my app that handles the bandwidth and financial transactions.
Though a Mac app store would have to offer demos, license conflict resolution and other things. That makes it a bit trickier.
The app store also takes 30% per copy, right? That's a good deal for some and not a good deal for others. Companies that don't like that deal will not be in the App store forcing people to go elsewhere for some of their software, which would then ruin the whole point of the App store, which is the EVERYTHING is available in one place.
My guess is that a $150 OEM Pack of OS X, iLife and iWork would generate more profit than a Mac Mini.
Fully agree!
Yet also a vast number of potential MacBook buyers will buy cheaper Acer hardware and install OSX there.
And quite a few potential MacBook Pro customers will opt for a HP, Sony or DELL instead.
And all these will hurt Apple a lot as Apple makes a lot more than $150 on any of their notebooks.
How many licenses of OSX will they have to sell to make up for one lost MacBook Pro sale? 3, 4, 5? (Assuming Apple's profit margin is 27-28% on a $2500 laptop.)
Apple currently has a market share of ca. 10%. To sell 3, 4 or 5 times the OSX licenses as today, their market share would probably have to be 30%.
And at that point they only break even with sales lost on hardware...
This model only works if Apple can gain 50 to 60% market share, which is just not likely.
I am surprised how long it takes to see the obvious!?
I mentioned this several times, but I will try once more:
The main reason Apple does not sell the OS separately is because they view the hardware and the OS as a complete package:
blue plastic macs - introducing Agua
...
introducing FrontRow - all macs with remote
introducing iChat video - all macs with iSight
introducing gestures - all mobile macs with big multi-touch trackpad
aluminum enclosures - change the OS to fit (not there yet, but moving)
introducing OpenCL - all macs with capable video chips
...
The list is endless! Could you imagine how this could work if they sell OS only? Something like this:
...
introducing OpenCL - who the fuck cares, selling the cheapest integrated video
...
Why you don't get it!!!? Haven't you noticed that the networked macs show with their actual icons? Haven't you noticed that some of the icons in the system preferences show the actual Apple hardware?
This model only works if Apple can gain 50 to 60% market share, which is just not likely.
Which Model?
As a licensor, Apple can decide which manufacturers and which products it will issue a license for. It would only pick licensees which generated cash.
Thought Exercise:
If all the world was Windows - which Mac computers would still sell and why?
Not everyone who buys an iMac would actually prefer a beige box. You might think that is the case, but it isn't true.
Not everyone who buys a Macbook Pro would be happy with a Vaio. Reason is they are crap.
Not everyone who buys a Mac Mini for under their TV would be happy with a beige box.
In other words, if Apple sees itself as primarily a hardware manufacturer.... (which is the argument being made) ....then they ought to be able to make hardware that was so good, it would *still sell* if the OS X "advantage" were not there.
Comments
if not all windoze APIs in OSX what about something to do with... youtube? no - gaming definitely gaming.
Death of OS X - no-one has any reason to write Mac-specific software any more.
100% agree with you...
Putting the Windows API in Mac OS X is stupid Putting Cocoa and XCODE onto Windows might be possible. It a lot of work. But possible....
This would hurt OS X and Mac marketshare. No more exclusivity of Apple apps would be a bad thing.
http://arstechnica.com/journals/appl...ithout-the-mac
C.
Sure it would hurt mac sales but wouldn't huge OS sales offset that?
So we could buy OSX and install it on a PC? Like what some geeks are already doing.
Sure it would hurt mac sales but wouldn't huge OS sales offset that?
Personally, I think it would a be a good thing. Especially if Apple only licensed OS X to companies who deliver an airtight driver solution.
Apple has a unique opportunity to do an OS land grab - and pull the rug out from under Microsoft.
C.
But there are plenty of people who think that Apple's hardware sales would take a titanic nosedive if they could get OS X on a cheaper Dell or a Sony.
This is not going to happen. Not unless Apple is short of going bust.
Steve Jobs was there once and has done exactly that with NeXT. NeXT was a hardware/software company not unlike Apple and when NeXT hardware didn't sell too well (they were just too expensive compared to generic PC hardware), Jobs had the OS port to generic Intel Hardware and tried to sell NeXTStep as an alternative to Windows and OS/2.
It didn't work. In fact it made matters worse.
Two reasons:
1.) Many 'home users' don't actually pay for OS licenses.
People just use the OS that comes pre-installed, and never bother to upgrade.
Alternatively they know a friend of a friend who has a copy (or download it off the Internet).
So not much money to be made here...
2.) Business users are notoriously sluggish in regards to change. It takes ages for them to even consider, let alone test and install, any new OS. It will be years, if not a decade, until any OSX would have a chance there.
So not much money to be made here either...
On the flip side, many current Mac buyers will simply opt for other hardware - as choice is good. They will buy DELL, Sony, HP, Acer or OQO hardware and install OSX on it.
With the dire result that Apple suddenly only sells a single copy of OSX to these users - instead of a whole piece of hardware.
So a lot of money to be lost here...
Those were the reasons NeXT nearly went under and had to be sold to Apple back in the late 1980ies.
And I hope Steve Jobs learnt his lesson and will never even consider turning OSX into an operating system for the 'generic PC' market.
The moment this happens, OSX will have sealed its fate and 5-10 years later it will be no more.
Apple should (and will) only do this if they
a) have no other choice, as a last ditch effort to save Apple from going bankrupt or
b) no longer care about Mac OSX and just want to eek out a few more software sales.
The reason why Apple applied for an 'OSX' trademark is very likely the introduction of a new set of devices, tablets perhaps, Internet terminals or netbooks running the iPod/iPhone variant of OSX, which is technically not a 'Mac OSX' but simply 'OSX'.
So we could buy OSX and install it on a PC? Like what some geeks are already doing.
Sure it would hurt mac sales but wouldn't huge OS sales offset that?
Apple's business model is built around making money on the hardware. That's why a) they have very lax piracy protection, and b) they sell the OS for so cheap.
In order for the OS X on PC's to work, they would have to a) raise the price, and more importantly b) have a large business base (business don't pirate like consumers do.)
With Windows, for example, the percentage of consumers that go out and buy new versions of the OS is extremely low. New Windows gets legally distributed by company IT depts rolling out upgrades, and on new computers sold to consumers.
(Besides which Steve Jobs isn't dead yet- the chances he'd bring back the clone business, giving the history is pretty low.)
What about an App Store for standard Mac applications and games? I believe it has been mentioned before but not in this thread. However, I don't know really if that would qualify as something that "obvious" and "jaw-dropping" as this rumor tells about...
App store for iPhone only works because it is the only easily available, supported method for getting apps on the iPhone. If there was another way that was just as easy for everyone, and that Apple allowed, the App store would no longer be any good.
Therefore that would never work on OS X in its current condition.
The reason that business model works for Microsoft is because of their near-monopoly in the business segment, their close relationships with manufacturers (kind of like the relationship loan sharks have with their clients), and their huge market share advantage. If any one of those things slips significantly, Microsoft would have serious problems paying for themselves as well. (And I guess Microsoft also has a LOT of niche and not so niche software products besides the OS that can more than pay for themselves, again with an emphasis on their control of business market)
The problem with 'OSX on generic Intel hardware' is that this strategy has a lot of risks, with the majority of possible outcomes being Apple going bankrupt.
And history has a tendency to repeat itself, so better learn from it and don't do the same mistakes twice.
Even if Apple would limit OSX only to a handful of 'blessed' hardware manufacturers, we end up with the same situation that we had in the days of the Mac clones.
And as meelash pointed out - that didn't work either.
Apple just lost too many hardware sales, which is still 50% of its business.
I can see this happen though, many years from now, in a time when desktop PCs and notebooks are used by businesses only while the vast majority of home users have just mobile devices which dock into a bigger screen + keyboard at home.
At that point, when Apple like all other PC manufacturers focuses their traditional (Mac) hardware on the business market, Mac OSX could be sold as a separate software product, if Apple chooses to slowly exit the business hardware production.
Hopefully this is the end of that idea in this thread!
Unless Ireland tells me I'm dead wrong...
App store for iPhone only works because it is the only easily available, supported method for getting apps on the iPhone. If there was another way that was just as easy for everyone, and that Apple allowed, the App store would no longer be any good.
Therefore that would never work on OS X in its current condition.
I'm not too sure I agree with this.
The only problem I see with a Mac app store is that it wouldn't have the breadth of the iPhone app store because iPhone are cross platform.
If I was a developer I don't think I'd mind having a centralized marketplace for my app that handles the bandwidth and financial transactions.
Though a Mac app store would have to offer demos, license conflict resolution and other things. That makes it a bit trickier.
I'm not too sure I agree with this.
The only problem I see with a Mac app store is that it wouldn't have the breadth of the iPhone app store because iPhone are cross platform.
If I was a developer I don't think I'd mind having a centralized marketplace for my app that handles the bandwidth and financial transactions.
Though a Mac app store would have to offer demos, license conflict resolution and other things. That makes it a bit trickier.
The app store also takes 30% per copy, right? That's a good deal for some and not a good deal for others. Companies that don't like that deal will not be in the App store forcing people to go elsewhere for some of their software, which would then ruin the whole point of the App store, which is the EVERYTHING is available in one place.
Apple's business model is built around making money on the hardware.
Not so sure. My guess is that a $150 OEM Pack of OS X, iLife and iWork would generate more profit than a Mac Mini.
C.
My guess is that a $150 OEM Pack of OS X, iLife and iWork would generate more profit than a Mac Mini.
Fully agree!
Yet also a vast number of potential MacBook buyers will buy cheaper Acer hardware and install OSX there.
And quite a few potential MacBook Pro customers will opt for a HP, Sony or DELL instead.
And all these will hurt Apple a lot as Apple makes a lot more than $150 on any of their notebooks.
How many licenses of OSX will they have to sell to make up for one lost MacBook Pro sale? 3, 4, 5? (Assuming Apple's profit margin is 27-28% on a $2500 laptop.)
Apple currently has a market share of ca. 10%. To sell 3, 4 or 5 times the OSX licenses as today, their market share would probably have to be 30%.
And at that point they only break even with sales lost on hardware...
This model only works if Apple can gain 50 to 60% market share, which is just not likely.
Look at the gross margins of software companies and I think you will find that in most cases the software companies have a greater gross margin.
I mentioned this several times, but I will try once more:
The main reason Apple does not sell the OS separately is because they view the hardware and the OS as a complete package:
- blue plastic macs - introducing Agua
- ...
- introducing FrontRow - all macs with remote
- introducing iChat video - all macs with iSight
- introducing gestures - all mobile macs with big multi-touch trackpad
- aluminum enclosures - change the OS to fit (not there yet, but moving)
- introducing OpenCL - all macs with capable video chips
- ...
The list is endless! Could you imagine how this could work if they sell OS only? Something like this:- ...
- introducing OpenCL - who the fuck cares, selling the cheapest integrated video
- ...
Why you don't get it!!!? Haven't you noticed that the networked macs show with their actual icons? Haven't you noticed that some of the icons in the system preferences show the actual Apple hardware?This model only works if Apple can gain 50 to 60% market share, which is just not likely.
Which Model?
As a licensor, Apple can decide which manufacturers and which products it will issue a license for. It would only pick licensees which generated cash.
Thought Exercise:
If all the world was Windows - which Mac computers would still sell and why?
Not everyone who buys an iMac would actually prefer a beige box. You might think that is the case, but it isn't true.
Not everyone who buys a Macbook Pro would be happy with a Vaio. Reason is they are crap.
Not everyone who buys a Mac Mini for under their TV would be happy with a beige box.
In other words, if Apple sees itself as primarily a hardware manufacturer.... (which is the argument being made) ....then they ought to be able to make hardware that was so good, it would *still sell* if the OS X "advantage" were not there.
C.