joe75 Posted November 12, 2006 Share Posted November 12, 2006 10 years ago would you have thought Apple would use an x86 processor on the a Mac? Those same people probably thought no way, not in a millions years. Well it took less than 10 years for Apple to dump the PowerPC chip for Intel. Nothing is impossible when it comes to Apple Computer. Thats right Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skn Posted November 12, 2006 Share Posted November 12, 2006 Apple will sell OSX to everyone in the future. It's just a matter of time. Jobs is just waiting for the right moment to do it. Don't forget guys, Microsoft wouldn't like to see such move from Apple... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
A Nonny Moose Posted November 12, 2006 Share Posted November 12, 2006 So...much...more...wrong...must...reply... Take a look at all the OSx86 users; times that by $130.00. This is how much Apple is losing out right now. For simplicity sake, lets say their are 100,000 OSx86 users world wide. 100,000x130.00=$13 Million And if they all bought a Mac mini, it would be $59.9 Million (100,000 x $599). What's your point? That seems like a drop in the bucket. That doesn't to me, but it's not a billions of dollars Apple is generating right now. But those same users will probably buy every upgrade (as long as they don't have to hack every device driver like they do now). So with 3 upgrades that would be $39 Million. Now what if this phenomenon spread to 50% of the PC user base within the next 5 years. Now we are talking some serious $$. Apple could still sell there artsy niche boxes; while at the same time make substantially more money in the future from a x86 version of Mac OS X. The fact remains that there is an untapped market for OSx86. Whether it comes from Apple or a thirdy party developer, there is a market. Otherwise InsanelyMac or the OSx86 would not exist. If Apple could not make money selling an OS, why the hell is Microsoft doing it over and over again? I am sure Apple has a backup plan for OS X. They just haven't revealed the plan to the world just yet. So if users bought every upgrade to their Mac mini, it would result in the same amount over a larger capital base. Plus, you need to make sure that you can pay your utility bills, rental spaces, and payroll costs. Not everyone at Apple is paid $1 a year like Steve Jobs. As for infecting the PC user base, it won't happen, so get over it. People are so entrenched in Windows that changing the OS on them would spell doom. They're used to the Windows insecurity blanket. Is there a market for selling OS X on $20 Dells? Sure there is, but you have to remember that you're dealing with a minority within a minority and that never works, marketing wise. As an analogy, you're asking Apple to market the OS to black men under 5 feet in height who are dating white women over 6 feet in height. Such a marketing strategy would never work. If you think OSx86 version of OSX by Apple is not possible. 10 years ago would you have thought Apple would use an x86 processor on the a Mac? Those same people probably thought no way, not in a millions years. Well it took less than 10 years for Apple to dump the PowerPC chip for Intel. Nothing is impossible when it comes to Apple Computer. gt OK, time for the Apple History lesson again. Ten years ago (ahhhh, 1996), Power PC chips were kicking Intel's butt and there was no reason for Apple to use Intel chips. So what happened between now and then? Well, around the time of the Mirrored Drive Door G4 (the hairdryer), Intel caught up and finally figured out that it needed to release chips that did more at lower clock speeds (as opposed to the inherently inferior Pentium chips that needed high clock speeds to make up for a 20 stage pipeline as opposed to PPC's 6). So with Intel surpassing the PPC chips and the PPC chips lagging like a bunch of idiots, Apple switched off to Intel. Will Apple ever go back to using PPC? It depends on what IBM and Motorola does with their chips and whether or not it can surpass Intel. Same thing with AMD. Can AMD fit the "faster, smaller, cooler" mantra that Apple wants and Intel supplies? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
semthex Posted November 12, 2006 Share Posted November 12, 2006 This is a very interesting discussion. I jsu read about PPC and stuff. I think the "end" of PPC already begun. Apple will completly switch to Intel, there is nothing much to say about that anymore. Since now even adobe stated they will offically drop PPC dev, it's just a matter of time til the last PPC-Mac leaves the factory. Sad but tur, the "G" days are over. About Apple on ordianry PC.. it would be nice but I still don't belive it will ever happen. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BlackShadowWolf Posted November 12, 2006 Share Posted November 12, 2006 Wow Nonny your posts are amazing, and true . After thinking about this for awhile I realized that this discussion will never end, there will always be people complaining about no Mac OS X on PCs til the end of time. Therefore I propose this idea. InsanelyMac has a contest from now until MWSF in January. The goal is to create the most realistic solution that will allow Mac OS X to be licensed on PCs, but still wont harm Apple's hardware sales. Plans should be detailed including prices, support options, marketing etc. The best ideas could be taken to MacWorld if someone from here goes to it, and try to submit the ideas to Apple, or find out if the ideas are already in motion. I find this a creative way for people to vent/rant about licensing with some fun involved to . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
niteice Posted November 12, 2006 Share Posted November 12, 2006 InsanelyMac has a contest from now until MWSF in January. The goal is to create the most realistic solution that will allow Mac OS X to be licensed on PCs, but still wont harm Apple's hardware sales. Plans should be detailed including prices, support options, marketing etc. The best ideas could be taken to MacWorld if someone from here goes to it, and try to submit the ideas to Apple, or find out if the ideas are already in motion. Problem: Nobody seems to realize that licensing OSX will harm their sales. I'm not saying that everybody will dump Apple in favor of Dell if they can run the same OS, but rather, Apple is a hardware company cleverly disguised as a software company (with all due respect to ANM). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest goodtime Posted November 12, 2006 Share Posted November 12, 2006 Apple will never switch back to PowerPC. IBM could never keep up with Apple's supply and demand. There were always shortages and the IBM could never make a PowerPC G5 chip cool enough for the PowerBook line. Besides, once all the programs are written for Intel, do honestly think it would be in Apple's best interested to switch back PowerPC? I don't think so. As far as minorities are concerned, Apple has the lowest Market share of Desktop computers on the planet. Apple is in the Minority. There are 100,000 times more PCs sold every year to 1 Macintosh computer. How do you think Microsoft makes billions of dollars on Windows alone? If Apple could figure out how to get users to forget about Vista and XP, Apple could replace its OS on the majority of those machines. All it needs is a $130.00 switch campaign for SSE3/SSE4 PC Owners. Vista costs 200-300 bucks. All Apple needs is a Windows compability layer built inside OSX like a slicker Aqua version of DarWINE. Then the Windows users could run their x86 windows programs directly in OSX and not worry about Windows anymore. Apple could start a campaign: Tired of Spyware and Viruses, Tired of Windows, but still want to run your current programs? Switch to OSX for just 130 bucks and all your problems are solved. Plus you get all the benefits of a Mac without buying a Mac from us. Hey we're confident you'll switch." Apple could OEM its OS with HP and Dell. HP and Dell would be responsible for getting third party companies to write device drivers for OSX. Apple could even tell HP and Dell in order to have OSX, it would need make OSX the default operating System and if HP or Dell wanted to continue to sell Vista, that it would have to increase the price an extra $200 or more dollars on those boxes with Vista and OSX. And for boxes with Vista only, it would cost $300 more. Apple could always keep its cool software programs like iMovie, iLife, and Frontrow for Mac only systems and sell and LE Version of OSx86 for current PC owners. Something like this will happen within the next 10 years. Apple will one day realize that selling software is much cheaper than designing and selling hardware. When we all get fibre to the home. It could sell OSX Install Disc over the net. The cost of distribution would be minimal. Apple could still sell its hardware to the creatives and home users that want to buy them. That will always remain a niche market. Apple stands a much better chance getting its OS to the masses than getting its hardware to the Masses. There are just too many other computer manufacturers for a single company to compete with. Plus the reason why not every OSx86 user is geting a Mac Mini? What OSx86 user would buy a Mac Mini box when you can build your own tower that has more expandability than a Mac Mini for the exact same price? The only reason why I would get a Mac mini is for a media center. But now Apple is working on iTV which in effect wipes out the Mac Mini media center idea. gt Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest goodtime Posted November 13, 2006 Share Posted November 13, 2006 Wow Nonny your posts are amazing, and true . After thinking about this for awhile I realized that this discussion will never end, there will always be people complaining about no Mac OS X on PCs til the end of time. Therefore I propose this idea. InsanelyMac has a contest from now until MWSF in January. The goal is to create the most realistic solution that will allow Mac OS X to be licensed on PCs, but still wont harm Apple's hardware sales. Plans should be detailed including prices, support options, marketing etc. The best ideas could be taken to MacWorld if someone from here goes to it, and try to submit the ideas to Apple, or find out if the ideas are already in motion. I find this a creative way for people to vent/rant about licensing with some fun involved to . What a great idea. About Apple on ordianry PC.. it would be nice but I still don't belive it will ever happen. It will happen illegally until Apple makes it legal. Just like people will choose to smoke pot illegally. It will happen no matter what. What is missing is a way to legalize OSx86. The only way for that to happen is either Apple sells a generic x86 version OR somebody else comes out with a better NeXT like Operating system that doesn't need OSX to run Mac software and Aqua programs. Either one could happen, but the decision falls into either Apple hands for it to be legal or our hands to make a legal compatibility layer that does use OSX code. Until either one actually happens, there will always be OSx86, the uncut illegal nonprofit cool-as-hell as-good-as-Mac sink-your-teeth-into version. Hands down, OSx86 rocks. As illegal as it "may" be. I did by a copy of Tiger for Macs, and I would have bought one if Apple sold one for x86. And I'll buy a version of Leopard for Macs and I would buy the x86 version of 10.5 again if Apple Computer actually made a generic version available. If 10.5 does get cracked, it might even boost 10.5 sales. Prediction: 10.5 will be Apple's biggest selling OS in Apple history since System 7. Users could buy 10.5 at the Apple Store locally; and then download the tiny ppf patch to run it on x86 computers. Now that is likely to be plausible. And it may be tough to enforce the license aggreement to people who actually buy a license. Another route to make running 10.5 legal might be: buy a license and run it in a VM environment. VMs are becoming increasing popular and it will hard to legally deny the use of VMs with any operating system if the user actually pays for a software license of the VM computer. With all that said, I encourage every OSx86 user to purchase 10.5 for Intel Macs when it comes out. This would show our good faith that we are not trying to steal OSX. If we all band together and purchase a license, then it would be harder for the courts to decide if it is in fact illegal or not even if it violates Apple's software license agreement. The courts could over turn it if licenses are purchased and Apple accepts the money from OSx86 customers. Plus showing our good faith keeps us all on the radar for a generic x86 version in the future. gt Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bluedragon1971 Posted November 20, 2006 Share Posted November 20, 2006 As far as minorities are concerned, Apple has the lowest Market share of Desktop computers on the planet. No they don't, not when you are comparing apples with apples (pardon the pun). Apple is selling a computer, not an OS. When you compare them with other computer OEM's, they are in 4th place (in the US) behind Dell, HP/Compaq, & Gateway/eMachines. I think globally they are in either 5th or 6th place, with Toshiba and possibly one other company ahead of them. Even as huge as Sony is, they still sell less computers than Apple. http://www.macworld.com/news/2006/07/20/ma...share/index.php Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts