“I will admit that the possibility does exist that Apple doesn’t want its OS in the wild, since it could potentially hurt hardware sales. At least that’s the way the company might see it. This assertion does assume that the Apple marketing department is brain-dead,’ John C. Dvorak writes for PC Magazine.
“I see the OS getting out in the wild as having the opposite effect. For one thing, it would increase interest amongst developers, which should boost overall sales. Besides, I’m completely convinced that Apple could still get the same premium for its machines that it does today,” Dvorak writes. “People simply like the design of Apple gear. Just look at the sales of the overpriced iPod in a market glutted with MP3 players. Why does anyone buy one? How is this ga-ga mentality different with computers?”
MacDailyNews Take: This article is sort of a re-do of Dvorak’s PC Magazine article, “Mac-Intel Aftermath” from June 13, 2005. In this new one, Dvorak looks at the possibility of Apple using Intel’s “trusted computing” hardware DRM to lock down Mac OS X OS to ensure it ran only on Apple-branded hardware. As you can see above, John thinks this would be a “brain-dead” move by Apple. Somehow, Dvorak gives Apple’s Mac OS X lots of credit for being so good that it would boost overall sales while giving Apple’s “ga-ga” hardware designs little or no value. Dvorak discounts the value of Apple’s control of the whole widget (hardware+operating system] to guarantee as seamless an experience as possible for Mac users.
Dvorak goes on to repeat the theme of his mid-June article; that Apple is just making it seem like they wish Mac OS X to remain only on Apple-branded hardware, but really secretly plans to eventually let Mac OS X run on the Dells of the world.
Dvorak outlines his latest scenario:
1. Keep Microsoft from getting weird early [keep “freaky Microsoft from get freaky on them” and killing Office for the Mac].
2. Assure current Mac mavens that not much is going to change.
3. Allow for Apple to pretend to fight the OS getting out into the wild, so it can then say, “There was nothing we could do. This is the OS that people apparently want and need.”
4. Give Steve Jobs the path to a formal announcement at one of the Apple confabs where there isn’t much to announce.
5. Give Jobs the ability to tell Gates that Apple didn’t really want its OS on all computers everywhere. “Bill, you’ve got to believe me!”
At or around the 4th step above, Dvorak explains, “In the wings is waiting a shrink-wrapped [Mac OS X] upgrade that works perfectly on older machines. A public announcement comes. ‘It works on machines that Microsoft Vista won’t run on!’ says Jobs. The crowd goes wild. And it’s priced below Microsoft Vista. It turned out that the hacked OS-X86 that Steve was so angered by was actually the beta test for the rollout of the commercial product.”
Read the full article (and Dvorak’s older article – see related article below) here.
MacDailyNews Take: Dvorak seems to have dropped his sixth step: “Spyware and viruses emerge on the Mac” from his earlier piece. Perhaps he’s taken a closer look at Mac OS X and realized that might not happen. Or, who knows, maybe he just forgot about that one? As we said in our take to his first article, “The insistence by some that if Mac OS X had the market share of Windows that viruses and malware would be just as bad is just illogical. There are millions and millions of Mac OS X computers on the ‘Net and zero viruses. Do the math. Use common sense. Mac OS X is simply more secure than Windows by design.”
The rest of Dvorak’s theory – a “twisted scheme” in his words – is interesting and, after the last few years, we have to admit that just about anything is possible. We do think that Jobs intends to attempt to offer the world at large a better option than Microsoft can offer. At this point, it’s anybody’s guess what Jobs is planning. What do you think?
Related MacDailyNews articles:
Apple CEO Steve Jobs’ ultimate goal: ‘to take back the computer business from Microsoft’ – June 16, 2005
Michael Dell say’s he’d be happy to sell Apple’s Mac OS X if Steve Jobs decides to license – June 16, 2005
Dvorak predicts Mac OS X for generic x86, Apple ‘Office’ suite, dawn of Mac viruses and spyware – June 13, 2005
as discussed by Leo and gang in podcast episode 17 of TWiT
http://thisweekintech.com/
You never know anything with Steve Jobs. . one minute he’s sayin’ no next minute he’s sayin’ yes, and sometimes he doesn’t say anything, while other times he says something doesn’t come through with it and fires everyone involved with the mistake. . .Gotta love ol’ Steve.
in about 15 years.
BTW, I think people buy iPods becaue they WORK better, not LOOK better.
hmm sounds alot like cringely.
(understatement)
cringely said the latest announcement for intel macs was merely a decoy.. a way to release OS X to the hackers and let them play around with it for about a year.. so they could get the developer copy of OS X and have it ready to work on any Dell..
this ‘transformation’ of OS X is happening as we speak
Oh good, now that Dvorak has given this idea his blessing, we can all rest easy that it will never happen. Thanks John!
MDN MW: “Never”. How fitting!
SJ does not intend for Mac OS to be installed on some garage assembled bin parts PC from 3 years ago. Too many issues about quality. We will again see the day that the Mac OS is installed on x86 computers – just new ones that meet certain requirements.
Steve clearly said in his keynote that they “want to build better hardware” and that’s why they are switching to Intel. Sure, the heart of a Mac is the OS (that could have a hidden message), but Apple wants and will continue to build the best computers in the world. They are different because they are different. Simple as that. The moment they become just another computer company is the moment they become unimportant. The world needs Apple for what they do and Apple is delivering.
As if…
Why is the beta process for the Windows OS typically 18 months or more? Because of all the variations of hardware it tries (emphasis on ‘tries’) to support.
I don’t believe Apple will ever want to get into those long development and test cycles. It is extremely expensive to do.
Apple controls both the hardware and software to give the best experience. Expect Apple to do some type of tie in between the hardware and software so the Mac OS only runs on hardware sanctioned by Apple.
It’s been that way since the original thin man. I don’t expect this to change.
Wow, I guess he continues to think up outrageous and creative possibilities simply to get some more hits on the ole website.
And now, back to some reality…
Apple will be just fine if it goes out in the “wild”. Try ringing Apple for support and the first thing they do is tell you to buy legitimate Apple hardware and software.
As it is now, take a replica Rolex for service and they smash it with a hammer in front of you! That WOULD be good…in every Apple store a dedicated room for destroying old Windows PC’s (and happy new customers going home with an Apple under their arm)!
http://www.bbspot.com/News/2005/08/apple_bsod.html
Apple’s Tiger Will Include BSOD Widget
By Russell Skingsley
Cupertino, CA – Apple Senior Vice President Phil Schiller announced that the next update to its operating system “Tiger” would come with a blue screen of death widget. He said that this is being released in response to users that need to blend in with their corporate standard operating environments.
“Many users prefer to use a Mac at work but fear the persecution from the IT support staff for not complying with the corporate standard,” said Schiller.
Now Mac users can install the BSOD widget and when they see the IT manager approaching simply press “F12.” Their screen instantly becomes filled with an image of the blue screen of death. Not only does this fool the IT manager into believing the user is adhering to the corporate standard, it also sends him scurrying back to his office as quickly as possible to avoid fixing the problem.
Schiller suggested that this continues the trend of making Mac OS X more “enterprise friendly.”
“What started with Windows file-sharing compatibility that only partly works is further improved with the BSOD widget. We at Apple understand that we need to increase our perception of unreliability if we are to compete with Windows in the workplace. The BSOD widget is big step in that direction.”
” width=”19″ height=”19″ alt=”LOL” style=”border:0;” />
If apple ever allows anyone to build boxes to run OS X then they have to ensure quality control, they can’t just let any old company sell something regardless of how well it works. Irrespective of the quality of windows itself it is made worse by the inconsistency of the hardware it has to run on and all the different configurations it tries to accomodate. Apple would be nuts to just let it out in the wild so to speak, just from the point of view of “It just works”, which it wouldn’t do when you take into account all the dirt cheap shit boxes out there.
Uh, no. While there are lots of plausible scenarios out there, Dvorak is woefully mistaken. Even where he to accidentally end up being “right” about the end-results, his reasons and logic have almost nothing to do with business. “So he’ll have an excuse for Bill Gates.” Whatever. Anybody want to take a reasonable look at this from an actual business-man’s point of view?
MW: research, as in someone didn’t do theirs.
First off, I’m a true-blue converted Mac lover.
That said, Dvorak is right… perhaps not on every minute detail, but the end result of Mac OS X running on non-Apple boxes IS right. It’s NOT dangerous, it IS a good idea, and it WON’T be the death of Apple. Here’s why.
The “whole widget” concept is over and done, and it’s irrelevant anyway. As MDN is so fond of saying, “it’s the OS, stupid”… and it is. So long as Apple maintains an ‘officially sanctioned’ list of particular models and/or configurations, they still effectively control the “whole widget”… except, by the way, they don’t even now. Right now, Apple controls only the box they sell you and could easily control the box someone else sells you, or at least refuse support if it doesn’t conform. What you do with it is your business, and done at your own risk. Let’s face it, the second you plug **ANY** non-Apple peripheral into your Mac, it’s no longer the machine that left the factory, and problems can (and do) arise already — even sometimes with… GASP! Apple-branded hardware. If you don’t believe that, point your browser over to Macintouch, Macfixit, Apple’s own forums, or any number of other Apple user forums. It’s no crime, it’s no shame, it’s just life. Computers aren’t perfect, although OS X machines are admittedly far closer than other alternatives. Furthermore, the stability that comes by nature with a UNIX-based operating system means the computer is reliable enough to be predictably stable with almost anything you throw at it.
Would clones mean a fundamental shift away from hardware sales? No, certainly not. Would Apple sell fewer boxes? Perhaps, but they could sell them at more profit, and in any case it wouldn’t matter. They would be making money on licenses, and many people would still purchase Apple products because they are just nice… as Dvorak mentions. I’d still purchase a Powerbook, because after two years beating around in my backpack, my Rev 1 Aluminum G4 still looks as good as the day it was new and runs great. It was (and remains) a great design, well-built out of quality parts. What more could I ask? Would I buy another one? In a heartbeat… and without considering other machines, because as a tech geek, I know only Sony could come close with great design, and they STILL aren’t as good. If you want even further proof that Apple CAN, and SHOULD move in this direction, just look at the Mac mini. Where do they make more money: a) on a $499 Mac mini, or b) on a $129 license of OS X, which remember has nearly zero marginal cost once it’s already developed and for sale? Try and price out — piecemeal — the hardware in a Mac mini, and you further underline the point. They may not be selling these things at a loss, but it’s damn close. QED.
…Which, conveniently, brings us back to the age-old Chevrolet-Mercedes/Windows-Apple parallel. I’ll not rehash it, because it explains itself. This parallel, by the way, has never held true completely because both the hardware and software were different. But under such a scenario, it easily could. Look at it like this: if you HONESTLY think OS X is the best operating system out there, would you rather your best friend/mother/spouse be running OS X on a non-Apple box, or running Windows? Of course, the question answers itself.
The point, therefore is this… someone who has never driven a car at all (or only a really horrible one) can only mildly appreciate the subtle, sometimes intangible differences between a brand new Chevy and a brand new Benz. But sit the owner of a (name your perfectly respectable, yet decidedly average car) behind the wheel of a truly fine automobile, and they WILL notice the difference in almost no time.
Wow… news flash folks: decent stuff costs something; great stuff costs more. The consumer product market is rife with examples of this very phenomenon… Chevrolet and Mercedes; Kenwood and Carver; GE and Maytag; Hoover and Dyson.
Someone with a few weeks of appreciation of the great design of OS X will quickly begin to appreciate the great design of Apple’s hardware too, on an even deeper level… and will likely eventually buy an Apple-branded box anyway, at Apple’s standard premium-market (read: “prosumer”) product market.
… in which case, Apple wins… except this time, they win TWICE.
Open your eyes, my friends. It’s the truth, and it’s a Good Thing.
Cheers,
adam
MDN Magic Word is “didn’t,” as in “Wow, I didn’t see the forest for the trees.”
Dvorak has been a hoot on those TWiTcasts, but won’t someone please send him a new headset? Every week it’s a new adventure in low-fi with his old equipment and bad voice connection.
This story is a shining example why writers are not running the buisness.
When ever a corporation makes a move, it’s planned out like a complicated chess game. It’s run through the computers just like a person would play the SIMS.
It’s gone over and over again to tweak out the problems then if it’s viable, it’s executed and new glitches corrected along the way.
People might want Mac OS X on their cheap PC’s, this is the only market that DOES. The big buyer of computers, corporations and businesses, would not switch to Mac OS X even if it was free and someone came to install it on their PC’s.
Why? Retraining costs a ton in lost productivity.
In reality Windows works just fine as long as it’s not hooked up to the internet.
M$ has got the buisness world locked up. That’s their turf.
Apple’s turf is consumer computers and graphic arts.
That’s why Apple is opening stores in high profile locations, to attract the consumer market and the one’s with money.
Apple doesn’t want the low margin customers, those who build their own PC’s out of parts and throws all illegal software on it.
Where is the profit in that for Apple? To pay for R&D?
M$ is already addressing the looks of the next issue of Windows and better security. By 2006-7 viruses will start to disappear because Vista will require a dual-core Intel chip and everyone will upgrade. It will also be DRMed up the ying yang. M$ allowed the insecurity because it served a purpose creating a bloated IT workforce that promoted it’s software. With the threat from Apple M$ has changed gears and is entrenching itself to weather the storm of Apple.
M$ knows corporations won’t make the switch as long as they address the issues.
So corportions are out, those who need to buy a computer for work are going to choose a Win PC.
Those who are going to spend money for a PC and have a choice will buy a Mac.
It’s the poor, rather vocal, non-paying, pirating, u-build it, cheap PC types that want Mac OS X for generic PC’s.
Nobody is interested, it doesn’t make any buisness sense to cater to this market.
If apple announced osx will run on any pc now it could hurt mac sales until the intel boxes come out. People would buy a PC and wait for apple to release the os. They would then get pissed when it didn’t run right away because the drivers for their video, audio, etc cards haven’t been released by those manufacturers. Apple would be bombarded with complaints about things beyond their control.
“The “whole widget” concept is over and done, and it’s irrelevant anyway.”
Dear Adam. If you truly beleive this has nothing to do with why us LONG TIME Mac lovers use them, then you really don’t get it. This is EXACTLY why it’s a better experience.
Hammer– Thanks for the response.
Although I didn’t hit this point deeply in my initial posting, it’s important to note that the “whole widget” really was important in the classic Mac OS days, when hardware and software standards were not nearly so widespread, and all periphery had to be directly tailored for any OS, Mac or otherwise. Furthermore, back then the Mac OS itself, although it always had the unquestioned edge in interface design, wasn’t quite so stable itself. I didn’t clarify this point either, but I’m not a recent Mac newbie. I had OS 8.5 and 9.x machines — one of which, incidentally, my parents are still using. They were great to use, and although they politely apologized when doing so, they still were quite crashy. Adjusting memory allocations for a particular application? Yeah, I’ve been there.
What’s important to understand here is that the Mac OS is as well-designed as it always has been, but **IT IS NOW A PRETTY SHELL ON TOP OF BSD UNIX**. This is crucial, because it means that almost any hardware will work about as well as any other, as long as the particular release supports standards, which clearly OS X does. If you don’t buy this, go ask a friend who still has a decent Linux install running on some otherwise-doorstop Pentium 1 hardware. It works, and Apple can easily guarantee reliability on a clearly specified Sony/HP/etc box as they can their own… again, so long as the specifics are clear.
Please remember what I was initially saying about *why* the whole widget was made mostly irrelevant. If I wasn’t completely clear before, I apologize, but it’s all about a) a UNIX kernel and b) standards. Why does your digital camera/flash key drive/nonstandard keyboard/cable modem “just work”? Do you think Apple actually tested your own configuration, or mine? Of course not… that’s impossible. The reason is because Apple engineers had the foresight to write the necessary code to do it, but that code hinges on standards. Why does your ‘book “just work” on any network? The same holds true: TCP/IP networking and 802.x networking standards have enabled OS software to be designed to the point that it “just works,” so long as the smart folks who write the OS are actually thinking about it. This is why it could work this time around, and to Apple’s advantage. If Apple established a **clearly defined** set of hardware that they guaranteed OS X functionality with equal faith as their own, they only stand to gain.
I remember the ‘clone wars’ the first time around, and understand why they didn’t work very well then, and why they could now. Anyone who’s ever tried to configure a slightly non-standard network stack under the classic Mac OS, versus doing so now… should too.
Again, I appreciate your comment, but next time try not to be so condescending.
Cheers,
adam
The bottom line is this. Apple is a harware company not a software one. Sure they make great software but it’s purpose is to sell the hardware. Yes it is the OS that makes the Mac special, but the OS is as close to hardware as you can get in software. Apple has always gone kicking and screaming into applications. Most of the great software products they produced only came after they could not convince a software company to do them.
So would Apple ever release the Mac OS for non-apple computers? Only in a John Scully controlled Apple. Steve Jobs is not about to do this. The only time this has ever been a possibility was in the early days of OS X development when it looked like Apple might be going down for the count. The iMac killed this concept. Sure Apple could make a fortune if it followed this course, but it would not be Apple anymore. I think of it like this, I see a lot of money in building coffe houses and Starbucks is making a killing, so I should quit my Job compete with starbucks – no because it is not what I like to do. I may make the best coffe in the world, but it is not my passion. This is the problem with the scenerio, it assumes that Apple wants to be the OS developer to the world.
A more likely concept would be that Apple looks the other way as it’s OS is pirated to non-Apple boxes. Making token attempts to stop it and inconvienace the pirates as each new OS release does not work on their computers for several weeks/months after release as the hackers break the new security. In this scenerio Apple does not squash it completely, because these new users will be building a software base and when it comes time to upgrade their systems, they will possibly choose to buy a real Apple to avoid the future headaches that the illegitimate users face.
I could be wrong, but I do not see Apple getting any closer than my scenerio above to sanctioning OS X on non apple boxes. Sure the market would love for them to do this, but it just doesn’t fit into their plan.
Its time for Apple to make OS X available to the masses. It could be done easily. Support only a limited amount of hardware (i.e. certain motherboards, graphics cards).
Apple WAS a hardware company. Its easier to make money off of software than hardware. Just compare Steve Jobs bank account to Bill Gates. Selling OS X to the masses won’t kill Apple’s hardware. How many people running a Power Mac would switch to a Dell? Very few. Now that the processors would be the same, there is no incentive to switch.
Let’s do a little math. If Apple makes $300 per Power Mac and they sell 100,000 of them a year, thats $30 million in revenue. Now what if they sell 3 million copies of OS X at $100 a pop. Thats $300 million. Believe me, selling OS X to the masses won’t hurt their hardware business. In fact it might help it. Just like the iPods have.
Now is the time. Microsoft is hurting. Dell wants to sell OS X. HP would love to sell OS X.
Do it Steve!
Can’t see it. Why would Apple want all the tech support problems associated with running OSX on a Dell? How do you make all those horrible, cheap PC add-ins work together?
Everybody makes the mistake of thinking that Apple needs to define itself as hardware company or a software company. The iPod is the perfect example–it’s hardware and software combined–that’s what makes Apple great and Jobs knows it–he won’t give that up so that Dvorak and his cheap minions can run OSX on a Dell, or something worse.
Adam says: “… Dvorak is right… perhaps not on every minute detail, but the end result of Mac OS X running on non-Apple boxes IS right. It’s NOT dangerous, it IS a good idea, and it WON’T be the death of Apple.”
I agree with this as well; in fact, putting OSX on non-Apple designed hardware (spec’d by Apple, to keep the support issues manageable) would easily be the Trojan horse of our times. It’s so clear, that I’m sure Jobs & Co. know it too. So why aren’t they pursuing it? I think there’s a reason, but my take – if true – would mean most of us (including Dvorak) are barking up the wrong tree.
As I’ve said in other posts, I don’t think the Macintel shift has anything to do with improving the Mac experience, or going with the best computing technology, or even supply certainty. I think it has everything to do with Intel’s DRM technology, which seems to be what the media companies favor becoming ubiquitous before they will ever allow their video content to be distributed digitally, ala iTMS. Apple needs that content before they could ever hope to do for the video sphere what they’ve done in audio. So, assuming they want to recreate their digital audio dominance in digital video (and it would be foolish to assume otherwise), Apple would be pretty vulnerable to doing what these companies want. Of course, as CEO of Pixar, Jobs may be in complete agreement with them (he’s got a few bucks to make or lose on the content side as well).
Either way, Apple building DRM ‘protected’ video specific home media servers or iPods wouldn’t be enough to allay the fears these companies have regarding piracy, as well as addressing the now total lack of control they have over pricing and delivery technology. The latter is a fairly recent development (and one they desperately want to reverse), thanks to the inherent capabilities of the personal computer. As a largely unfettered manipulator of all things digital, it trumps every ‘lock in’ scheme they try to institute. Therefore, DRM – from their perspective – MUST be extended to the PC at all costs, otherwise these specialty video dvices and online stores simply become suppliers and facilitators of people ‘rippin & burnin & sharin’ without any hope of controlling them (and thus profiting even more off of them, too).
Continued …
It doesn’t matter to these media companies which OS is involved in delivering their content (Windows or Mac); all PCs have to be ‘converted’ – and the sooner the better. In fact, Windows was already on the train, thanks to it’s reliance on x86 (and Intel dominating that market). But what allowed Mac to stay off the train was OSX running on non-DRM’d PPC chips. So, I believe, the media companies essentially talked Apple into a deal – we give you video, but you give us virtually an entire product line based on Intel x86 & DRM.
From Apple’s perspective, what with an x86 version of OSX already in development in case of problems (that really never materialized) with IBM, this would have been temptingly easy to accommodate with perhaps a great deal of upside. Sure, it would mean an inconvenience for some users, and probably computers that wouldn’t be as unique and/or good as they would otherwise. But Apple likely sees the potential upsides – in dominating a video paradigm in the way they dominate audio – as more than adequate compensation for any hardship. In fact, if the PC becomes little more than a media serving device that also happens to surf the web and allow you to do some work, then whether or not it does these secondary chores better than Windows may have seemed inconsequential in the future to them. If they’re right, then Mac will certainly beat Windows; not by being a better OS, but by being the only OS that allows consumers to partake in the Apple iVideo/iVMS/iPodVideo experience.
Therefore, Dvorak would be right in thinking it logical for Apple to release OSX into the wild, and his scenario for how that could happen is as good as any. But if Apple is no longer playing that game anymore, than the logic he uses is irrelevant – just as if I were to use the logic inherent in the rules of American football to anticipate the outcome of an European football, or Australian Rules game. Apple is no longer playing the same OS game we come to know and love. They’ve moved on to something else, and our thought processes in trying to figure out what they’re up to hasn’t caught up yet.
Not everything is changing though. The ‘whole widget’ concept is not over or irrelevant. It’s crucial to what Apple wants to do in their video-centric product future, just as it is now for the iPod and iTMS. And the home computer will be just as important in linking all this stuff together as it always has. Yet, as it is and will be the ‘digital gatekeeper’, it’s also the obvious point of vulnerability for media companies to express concern about, and hence try to get Apple to change so that they can regain some sort of control over pricing (primarily) and piracy (secondarily).
I will bet my left testicle (as I already lost my right in a card game back in ‘79) that Apple intends to do to Windows EXACTLY what it has done to Napster and Creative – beat them by simply becoming the cool, default, consumer standard for collecting, playing, and transporting anything and everything they want to watch. They don’t intend on competing with Windows anymore; they intend on doing an end run around them. But they need video content to do it, and for that they were convinced they had to throw PPC over for Intel DRM.