38 total posts
(Page 1 of 2)
The reason OS X is not on other hardware is simple. Drivers. Apple does not want to have to worry about them or others writing drivers. Having it tied to their product is the easy way to put out an OS.
Easy is not smart - - - in this case
It would be easier for me to stay home and draw welfare too. That doesn't make it the smart thing to do.
Let's look at the PC market.
And let's look at the plight of the average PC owner and drivers. It's too ugly.
Rather than dance around the issues or other, I take it that you want MacOSX on your PC. The driver support is part of the bane of Windows.
Why ruin a good thing?
Me, personally, no.....
I don't want a Mac OS on my PC, no.
But I do want to continue to use iTunes with phone/player combinations I see out there. I want to buy another (different) phone/player so I can take phone calls while listening to music/podcasts and have the player stop and the earphones used when a call comes in.
But will Jobba the Hut de-couple the hardware from the software?
That's not on subject?
Why not write that instead in your top post?
BTW, the same issue applies to itunes as macosx there is more. While other hardware support can be had you may have forgotten some history about how we got here.
Tell me you remember Rio and it's company dragged through the courts about MP3s.
Only those that don't know the history would dis Jobba.
Smart is relative
Jobs and Apple have no incentive to decouple OSX from the Mac. The reason OSX functions so well (imagine an operating system where the term Plug and Play is actually more than a hollow marketing sticker slapped onto the side of the package) is because of the tight control Apple has had in integrating the OS with the hardware.
Unfortunately, I doubt Apple could ever just say "here, take the OS and put it on whichever machine you want but we won't support it if it isn't on Apple hardware." They will get dragged down into the same nightmarish tech-support muck that Microsoft has to wallow around in every day.
In case people haven't noticed, Apple is one of the most healthy and profitable tech companies in the industry. Growing into a dinosaur like Microsoft isn't everybody's idea of the "smart" way to run a business.
Good points, plus
They're also a hardware company.
As a hardware company, their profits come from the hardware sales. The margins on OS X on Dell or HP systems would be ridiculously low compared to the margins they get on their systems right now.
Let's assume that Apple gets 25% on their systems (I've read it's as high as 40%, but as far as I know this figure is not publicly available, so we'll pick something lower). So with a 25% profit margin, Apple collects $149.75 for every baseline ($599) Mini sold. Sell a million, and that's $149,750,000.
Now let's assume they release OS X for generic hardware. If the retail price remains the same-$129. The margin is now $32.25. OEM's would most likely get the software for even less, so that's even less money in their pocket.
Just because Microsoft made fortunes selling software to run on a wide variety of hardware doesn't mean the same thing will work for Apple-and it doesn't mean that it will work for Apple right now. Just because it would be possible to get OS X on a $499 PC doesn't mean sales would skyrocket. Some people want a bargain-basement PC, and some (perhaps a lot of that crowd) want a bargain-basement PC that RUNS WINDOWS. Not one that runs OS X and Windows, but one that just runs Windows. People like my parents, for example, who are so used to using Windows that you could probably give them an iMac and they still wouldn't use it.
Margins between hardware and software are not equal
The problem with your assumptions is equating hardware margins to software margins. Hardware production costs are much more stable compared to the gradient scale of software. Software has a higher front end restriction on margin but if its popular and sells millions of copies, the actual margin on the 7 millionth copy lets say, is pretty darn close to 100%. Bill's secret to success.
Also compatibility problems with the generic hardware on the PC side can be fairly easily addressed by only selling certified install configurations--very much along the lines of what Microsoft has been quasi-requiring for thier Media Edition of XP.
I thought it was to maintain the hardware sales?
Not sure I'm right on this, but my understanding of the situation is that if OSX was available for PC that mac hardware sales would fall. My understanding was that OSX was a draw for ppl to buy mac hardware.
Yes macs are pretty, but up until recently they were more expensive, and had less expandability options. I know quite a few ppl that wanted macs but bought PC's cuz they were cheaper.
Again, plz correct me where I'm wrong so I can better understand Jobian economics.
You're partially correct.
But we only need to look at the common PC issues to see why Apple could not release OSX on a PC. Who would be on the hook for drivers?
What would happen to Apple's ease of use?
Thanks & More Mac ?'s
Drivers: doesn't MS provide many drivers for components and peripheral devices for their OS, so wouldn't Apple do it for theirs? Yea it might be some work, but if it were profitable, there's no quesetion in my mind that they would do it.
Ease of Use: I'm not sure I understand you here. A) I thought the ease of use talked about by mac ppl had to do with the OS/software and B)Is it possible for there to exist something with more 'ease of use' than my PC? Maybe I am overlooking all my inconveniences? I guess, what would be common examples of what makes a PC difficult to use with the average consumer (not the crazy super geek)?
Karl, ease of use is a myth..
Ease of use, please people, don't give me any crap about ease of use. The USER defines ease of use, not some over-zealous fanboy. I can even say that Ubuntu at times can be more easy to use than windows, but sometimes can be a PITA when installing stuff through tarballs - on to the point.
OSX gives a lot of tweaks that are a little bit better than Windows. First off, the search box in the file manager. Second, Plug-and-Play. Third, any peripherals appear as icons when they are connected. These icons are temporarily on the desktop and disappear as soon as you remove the device. Eye candy = good for users who aren't techno geeks and don't care about performance as much as the snazzy interface. iLife is also a great package for a Mac for studio tools for an average person.
Here's something else I'd keep bragging about Apple for you.
OSX leopard upgrade disk - 20-30 dollars
Vista upgrade disk - about 100 dollars
osx leopard installation disk - about 100 dollars
vista installation disk - 200-400 dollars
I know, OSX only works on Apple hardware, but... Upgrading a Mac is 20 bucks. 20 BUCKS!!!!
All in all, nobody REALLY can tell you how much of a good (or bad) time you'll have until YOU try it out. Karl, if you haven't already, you should become a Mac owners best friend, and give OSX a spin, you'll like it.
(NT) Apple doesn't sell upgrades to their OS, only full versions.
I have seen OS X upgrade discs. I don't know how you get them, but they do exist.
Mac OS update discs...
You get them when you buy an Apple within a month or so of a new OS. You have to prove that you bought your computer recently, then they give you a discount
Guess I was wrong, I've never seen these discs
BTW, if you're a student it's only $69 for a full version of Mac OS X which is very affordable.
haha thanx :)
whenever i go to the mall i spend a good hour playing around with the various macs. They're great.
For me, I guess the best way I can explain the situation is to compare it with Paint Shop v. Photoshop.
There's no doubt that photoshop is much better than Paintshop, but I've been using paint shop since v2 many years ago. For me to switch to photoshop would be quite a PITA (as you put it ;)). I can do things a lot quicker on paintshop than photoshp and I am more comfortable with it.
In the end, it's not a good excuse that, "well I was raised on PC's", but as a PC user I haven't been convinced that macs are SOOO much better than PC's. I think they are better, but I guess not as much as everyone else is claiming.
For example: i never search for anything so quick search doesnt help me. i know where things are on my computer. there are ZERO icons on my desktop. I like the wallpapers i make in paintshop ;).
ps: i did not know about the upgrade price difference. that's quite interesting!
I was new to Linux (until a while ago) and I didn't have one clue about compiling binaries, or what the heck a Tarball was. Of course, it isn't exactly fair to use Linux as an example, because Linux is far from the user-friendliness of Windows or OSX. Ubuntu is by far one of the best, but it isn't anywhere near perfect - And never will be - because of this. Software made by a multi-billion dollar company will most ALWAYS be beter than one made by a community of volunteers.
Anyways, Point being, it's acceptable that you're not used to OSX. It's uber once you get to use it. Linux is uber in a geeky sort of way. Ubuntu starts off with zilch icons - which is a lot better than the pre-installed crap that comes with every PC nowadays. Use what you feel is better- That's all that matters. But just to be fair, don't go starting a flame war without actually using OSX
If you "get used to" OSX, and also get used to Linux, and continue using Windows, you'll appreciate all 3. Each have their ups and downs. It's not fair to flamebait ahead. but Flamebait is a heckuva lot more fun
Flame makes the Internet go round, but Trolls believe the world is flat. Either way, it makes no difference.
When I pull a Mac out of the box, I plug it in and start to use it.
If MacOSX was made available for your PC and you agree that Apple is not on the hook for drivers then I have nothing better than a PC on Windows.
Let's hope this never happens.
i was saying that ms makes drivers, so apple should be responsible for theirs.
if osx runs on a pc, apple should make the drivers for it.
Let me ask this.
Did you use a CP/M machine?
I ask because your statement makes me think you didn't live through the years or remember how we got here.
It's a matter of knowing the history plus more.
I can see where your view is from. If you missed out on the ride to where we are today you might write that Apple should write the drivers for our PCs to run Macosx.
Let me share a recent event in sound cards. The Aureal cards are still out there. Here's where they went bust. http://www.theregister.co.uk/2000/09/25/creative_puts_aureal_out/
But what you may not know is that the inner details you need to write drivers for other OSes vanished and what we do have in Linux is mostly from tidbits discovered here and there.
My point is that hardware companies don't publish the details so your expectation of drivers coming from Apple, Microsoft or Linux driver writers is nice but like you've heard...
"Never going to happen."
-> This is why Apple will choose what hardware the OS runs on. If they let it out in the Windows free for all driver who's got the driver system then you would be hating MacOSx by next week.
(NT) Exactly what I was looking for, thanx :)
If all these arguments are true - then why...
If all these arguments are true then why does Mr Jobs suffer from so much PC envy?
Why the snipy "I'm a Mac, I'm a PC" comercials?
It seems to me that he wants to be a Bill Gates reeeaalllyyy bad. (but he doesn't have the business sense to pull it off, not then, not now)
Brilliant move IMO.
Did it pay off?
I think so.
John Holmes vs. Howard Stern vs. Lex Luthor vs. Superman
Using the phrase "PC envy" is, predicatbly, more of a goading phrase than an accurate one.
If you are warping the term from another more common type of envy then to send it back that way, I'd say Steve Jobs has about as much envy of PCs as John Holmes would of Howard Stern.
Jobs is arrogant about the Mac, not envious of the PC. Don't mistake the two.
As for saying Jobs doesn't have business sense... lay off the crack there, dude. Jobs just earned BILLIONS selling Pixar to Disney after paying a fraction of that for it years ago. He brought Apple back from the brink of non-existence and made the iPod the target for which EVERYBODY, including Microsoft is now gunning. I'd gladly live with 1% of his business sense.
I know the Apple 1984 commercial traumatized you to the point of attempting to become the world's biggest anti-Apple fanboy but your judgement is skewed. Sometimes your behavior kind of reminds me of one of those really cheesy villains from the comic books. You know, like Lex Luthor - "I'll GET you Superman if it's the LAST thing I do because your super breath that put out the fires that would have killed me knocked over chemicals and made me go prematurely bald. BALD, damn you!"
Give up the hate, Keystroke. Love the Supes... 'cause he loves you.
(NT) Yeah 8% of the market is a real success
Nice guys finish last.
That 8% is now 8% of how much bigger a market? It also reverses the trend where Apple's share was a measly 4 or 5%.
I'm calling this a success story.
Back to The CNET Lounge forum
(Page 1 of 2)