OS X for Intel runs on standard PCs
Mac Daily News reports that the developer’s build of OS X for Intel will run on any standard PC.
This can be a very good thing. A lot of people are fed up with Windows and hungry for something better. If Mac OS X can compete with Windows on the same hardware, I’m sure a lot of people would switch. It could be a real threat to Windows when people try it and find that it actually is better, and they don’t have to buy a new machine to run it.
Apple will most likely prevent it from running on standard PCs, but that’s very short-sighted. As long as people will have to buy a new machine to run OS X, its market share will always be limited. A good strategy for Apple would be to build the same elegant hardware they’re building now and sell it at a slight premium over standard PCs. At the same time they can sell OS X to other PC users. The people who appreciate the elegance of Apple hardware will continue to buy Macs and it may win over some new users. At the same time, the masses who just want a cheap PC but are disgusted with Windows, will buy OS X to run on their PCs.
Discuss this further in the forum.
Tags: Intel
June 11th, 2005 at 9:13 pm
While I might agree with Apple licensing OS X to a select group of PC box makers, who agree to tightly-controlled hardware specifications; the notion of every crappy white box out there, filled with inferior junk, attempting to run OS X is terrifying. Either Apple would end up with a support nightmare, or the users would end up with substandard performance. I don’t care if the “masses who just want a cheap PC” are willing to deal with a lousy computer - as long as they are running Windows - but don’t saddle the Mac universe with this horror.
June 11th, 2005 at 9:24 pm
One of the biggest reasons that Macintosh’s are supperior and “just work” is because Apple controls every aspect (software, hardware, drivers, etc.). If Apple allowed people to installed OS X on anything, then it wouldn’t be OS X, because it wouldn’t “just work” and wouldn’t be “something better.”
June 11th, 2005 at 9:28 pm
I’ve hear this question a billion times and the answer is always the same. Apple is a HARDWARE COMPANY, Mac OS X is the fancy paint job on the fancy car.
For EVERY sale of Mac OSX for PC’s that is sold, that’s one LOST HARDWARE SALE, which is more profitable.
A OS war will ensure between Microsoft and Apple, M$ with DEEP pockets, WILL FINALLY FIX WINDOWS AND OFFER IT DIRT CHEAP TO UNDERCUT APPLES PROFITS.
NO MORE HARDWARE SALES AND A REDUCED PROFITS FROM A OS WAR MEANS THE END OF APPLE. End of story.
June 11th, 2005 at 10:50 pm
People are always saying that Apple needs to expand its market share. It doesn’t. Besides, do you think it’s really all that simple to just MAKE IT WORK with everything a PC user will throw at it? Please. Apple isn’t short-sighted; you are.
June 12th, 2005 at 1:04 am
Um, so Apple’s just going to be able to support all the home-builts, weirdly configed, odd-carded PCs out in the world. Doubt it. If they can partner with Intel for a ‘reference’ chipset/boardset - like they tried to do with CHRP, then maybe. I’d love for everyone to be able to use OSX but my reality circuit keeps overriding my wishful thinking implant.
June 12th, 2005 at 5:39 am
I agree with the general concensus. If Apple do eventually plan to open up OSX for other box makers it would have to be done in a very controlled way. Microsoft have the intention of gradually developing the Xbox into a computing device with tight control and as and where appropriate offer it as an alternative to the pc platform. The last thing Apple needs to do is go the opposite way.
If Apple can establish a closely related but still relatively unique Intel computing platform then Apple could pull the mat from under Microsoft’s feet. They could be offering an alternative and better platform that is actually easier to move to than the one that Microsoft will be pushing hard. With careful cooperation with Intel and other selected companies (HP et al) who all stand to lose if, as and when Microsoft develops xBox as an alternative platform this could not only thwart MS strategy but gradually aloow Apples to be part of a bigger more cooperative and very profitable camp than that that Microsoft wishes to create for and around itself.
However this will all depend on how things go between now and change over and thereafter with the first generation of Intel machines. One thing that is pretty predictable though is serious media cooperation between Intel and Apple now that MS has ditched Intel from its own plans. Intel has nothing to lose now and after all media is going to be the major player in computing anyway over time its just when and what devices these will be.
June 12th, 2005 at 6:51 am
“Short -sighted” - have you ever done tech support for normal end users? Can you imagine doing so with an off the shelf OS and ratty hardware??? Can you imagine being in Apple and having to develop an OS with 100000 different drivers to cover all variables?? Oh wait, that’s Longhorn…
WE ARE MORE LIKE SGI AND SUN THAN MICROSOFT - please quit thinking so small!
June 12th, 2005 at 7:07 am
In a previous post it was mentioned that Apple was a hardware company and that reduced hardware sales would mean the end of Apple.
The future of computing is cheap, commodity personal computers. Xbox 360, PS3, Nintendo Revolution, Mac minis, PC clones, cell phones, and ipods are all precursors of this trend. The PC is quickly becoming as common as the toaster and probably as cheap. Mom and pop shops make less than 10% profit on each Mac sold, which is also common with other brands of computers. So in the end, everyone will have hardware but what will run on that hardware is the better question. What services do YOU need? How much will you pay? How often will you be willing to pay? Many people pay for broadband connections with monthly subscription fees. What if applications were like pay-per-view movies? Services and Applications are the future; hardware is the bait to get you hooked. Apple is moving in the right direction we need to see what Job’s “big plan” truly is.
June 12th, 2005 at 7:28 am
Instead of having Mac OS on standard PC, it is possible maybe the other way round: On a MacPC you can run Windows perhaps. Like a previous post has mentioned, Apple needs to sell hardware and they can do a very good job in getting a PC properly configured. So if they allow others to buy their MacPC and run both Mac & Windows on it, not only will they survive by selling hardware, they can really be the ultimate dream machines.
June 12th, 2005 at 7:38 am
Didn’t they confirm that Windows will run on an Intel-based Mac? I think they said something like “we can’t prevent people from running it”.
They’d have to support Windows on the new Macs. Right now you can use VirtualPC to emulate Windows. There would have to be a way to do the same on the Intel Macs.
June 12th, 2005 at 7:39 am
You have no business experience at all. Apple wants to increase the market share of Macintosh’s in the world not reduce it. Using the Intel chips will reduce the price of Macs, allow people to have the best of both worlds (the mac will run Windoze) and have a fine piece of hardware that will have a warranty and Apple support. People will be able to run any operating system out there now, with very little degrade to performance. One reasons macs are so stable is because of their hardware engineering, not slapped together in some aluminum case. Apple cannot survive on the OS alone and does not want to be another Microsoft. They are competing againts Dell and the likes.
June 12th, 2005 at 8:02 am
So why would Apple want to provide a device driver for every piece of crappy WinTel hardware out there?
No, they will keep it Mac like. Pick the best pieces and support only those. I image right now it happens to run on some generic Intel hardware, but will stop short quickly when it comes to some of the crazy hardware people think is normal.
Go back and look at NeXTstep. They had some very high and very specific hardware requirements and for these same reasons. The Windoze crowd is just loony thinking they will get Jobs to support anything and everything they stick in their boxes.
June 12th, 2005 at 8:24 am
Apple is a hardware company to make money, and that is not a trivial point. However Apple is a software company in its soul. It differienates using software. You don’t by Apple because it has a powerPC in it. You buy it for the user experience you want.
Hardware is more profitable for Apple now, and it builds great hardware with good margin. But just think what the margin on 1 more copy of osX is. Steve jobs wants a piece of the Microsoft pie.
June 12th, 2005 at 9:01 am
I really, truly, strongly hope that Mac OS X WILL NOT RUN on regular PCs, because that would mean the end of Mac OS X as we know it: high quality, rock-solid, stable operating system, which can be trusted. The moment it becomes the regular PC OS - it becomes just a mainstream OS, with all its problems, such as driver support, poor compatibility with weird hardware et cetera, et cetera. Apple certainly doesn’t want to deal with all that and disperse their resources on support of all that zoo, called “PC” - they’d rather concentrate on supporting just a limited set of hardware, but do that EXTREMELY well.
So no, it’s not short-sighted on their part, it’s short-sighted on yours: you, apparently, don’t understand what it means to support this zoo.
June 12th, 2005 at 9:02 am
Mac os will only run on computers build by apple. If you like you will be able to say partition your disk drive and have mac os on one and windows on the other. The real loser in the intel switch will be companies like dell, gateway, hp. Apple will overtake the pc industry and will dwarf ibm in the years to come. The number one reason people don’t by a mac today is that they use windows and are scared to buy something that won’t. Intel does not think in the short term.
June 12th, 2005 at 9:08 am
“A OS war will ensure between Microsoft and Apple, M$ with DEEP pockets, WILL FINALLY FIX WINDOWS AND OFFER IT DIRT CHEAP TO UNDERCUT APPLES PROFITS.”
An interesting point, but I’m sure the Department of Justice would invoke the sherman antitrust Act, and I don’t think MS would want to go that route “again”.
June 12th, 2005 at 9:45 am
I don’t understand the short-sighted comment.
Corporations replace their entire desktop comuter collection every three to five years. By providing a competitive OS with pricing that offers significantly lower cost of maintenance, Apple stands a very good chance of being very prominent in the lower end of commercial computing in the span of seven years. Once people are exposed to this environment at work, they’ll replace machinery to get the same ease of use at home. Since Apple earns MUCH more money per piece of hardware than they ever could from each piece of software, why give away easily hacked and duplicated, low margin products instead of irreproducable high margin products? Remember, the goal here isn’t the total domination of the OS world, it’s the generation of profit. A closely controlled, thoroughly lusted-after hardware/software combination is a far more lucrative and stable way to do that.
There’s nothing short-sighted about Apple’s decisions at all. Releasing the OS as a standalone product would be a bet-the-farm corporate strategy that would ultimately mean far more risk, less defensible markets, and far less reward.
June 12th, 2005 at 9:46 am
HA! Why wouldn’t they want to go that route again? They can tie any suit up in the court for years, and even if the judgement goes against them, so what? Nothing happened to them the last time they were found to be abusing power, why should it change this time?
June 12th, 2005 at 9:48 am
So being able to run Mac and Windows on one computer is your ultimate dream machine? Think again, friend. It would mean the end of the Mac OS.
The key here is not what OS you run, but whether developers will create software for it. Take Adobe. They get about 40% of their sales and profits from the Mac market. Now assume that they can cut their R & D costs by millions every year by simply putting a piece of paper inside of ever box. the paper reads:
Dear Mac User,
Please install Windows on your computer. Then you can run our program.
Developers would no longer have any reason whatsoever to develop for the Mac OS while still supporting the computers.
What about VPC? If you haven’t noticed, it sucks–it’s slow and not all Windows software works on it. People who need a high-speed PC won’t use it, only people with a few minor business applications will use it. If Apple is smart, they will develop some sort of Windows to Mac OS X software that will let developers easily make their Wintel applications work on the Mac OS. That’s what’s really needed.
June 12th, 2005 at 10:04 am
This is good news for small developers
If you are a hobbyist or a small developer, a thousand dollars to lease a machine for two years to test and debug endian issues isn’t a very good deal.
But, if you can just throw a copy of Mac OS X 10. (Intel) on a generic PC that you already have laying about, add a few lines to your regression test suite to push the latest binary to the other box and run your automated tests there, then you can be ready for the future with little trouble or expense.
June 12th, 2005 at 10:28 am
This i would love to see, i agree that apple should not allow OSX to be installed on just any god knows what pc junk. That would dilute the OSX experience.
I would love to see them make a deal with some of the big pc manufacturers. I would love to be able to order a dell with an osx option. I know some of the pc manufacturers are looking at and selling machines with linux as an option. They are fed up with the windows security issues. I think a lot of the manufacturers are now primed for such an offer from apple, that would dramatically increase apples market share while still controling the osx user experience.
Just a thought.
June 12th, 2005 at 1:05 pm
Exactly ten years back IBM had OS/2 Warp, a major alternative OS to Microsoft’s Windows which anyone could have installed onto their PC. Where’s IBM’s OS/2 and its software business now in 2005?
Where’s IBM’s PC manufacturing business now in 2005?
Has Windows’ dominance changed from it’s position in 1995?
You are short-sighted to think that Apple in 2005 will make the same mistake IBM made with OS/2 in 1995.
OS X is there to sell Apple hardware.
It’s better for a company to have a small slice of the market and to be profitable than to go bankrupt trying to capture all of the market.
June 12th, 2005 at 2:05 pm
Apple is a hardware company afterall, and Selling OS X86 for beige boxes would be the end of Apple. Still, in releasing OS X86 to the developers, it had to be a foregone conclusion that Tiger would end up on P2P networks, and I think Apple is having a laugh at M$’s expense over this one. It’s a great way to enter a party wouldn’t you say? It’s an entrance worthy of Kramer.
June 12th, 2005 at 2:43 pm
Further discussion on this subject has been moved to the Mac Intel forum topic.