“With the whole Pystar fiasco making headlines recently,” Gizmodo is running an interesting poll regarding Apple’s Mac OS X:
If OS X was available on non-proprietary hardware would you ditch Windows, Macs?
• Yes, I would switch to OS X – 37.5% (1780 votes)
• Yes, I would ditch my Mac for non-proprietary hardware – 10.2% (485 votes)
• No, I would not ditch Windows – 16.1% (765 votes)
• No, I would not ditch my Mac – 28.4% (1347 votes)
• Other – 7.7% (364 votes)
4741 total votes. Results as of 04/21/2008 10:26:25 pm EDT.
Cast your vote here.
[Thanks to MacDailyNews Reader “RadDoc” for the heads up.]
MacDailyNews Take: This is a well-worn topic, but the one twist that we always found interesting is the idea of Apple releasing Mac OS X one version behind to selected OEMs. For example, these lucky OEMs would get the most up-to-date Mac OS X 10.4 Tiger, certified by Apple to work on their specific hardware configurations, while Apple would retain the exclusive to the current Mac OS X 10.5 Leopard.
Oh hell no- I would not ditch my Mac!
It’s the whole widget, silly.
apple should sell tiger or panther only for non-apple hardware.
Keep leopard for apple hardware only but let the masses buy previous versions for $100.
wow only 16% say they stick with windows.?
Zune Tang is in a small group…
It’s never gonna happen, no point in even discussing.
Dump my 8 core MacPro? For what!
Yes, it is worth thinking about releasing a version of Panther/Tiger for white box makers. But how do you prevent someone from buying one of those boxes and upgrading to Leopard?
Are we going to go back to ROMs? DRM, dare I say?
bit of a meaningless question, that. Surely it would depend on quality, price, how well the system worked, stuff like that. Mind you, gizmodo does tend to be shallow. /Al in all a waste of time, like asking would you change your washing powder to brand x if the box was the right shape.
No I wouldn’t switch because I only use Windows for games (it’s the only thing it’s good for). I switched to Linux years ago.
I like MDNs idea though, let the Mac faithful be the beta testers, they’ll put up with anything.
“Dump my 8 core MacPro? For what!”
16 core UltraSPARC T2. Unfortunately I don’t believe they’ve ported iMovie to Solaris yet
” width=”19″ height=”19″ alt=”raspberry” style=”border:0;” />
No way, never going to buy some beige box POS and install OS X on it. Thank god Apple will never do that either.
Making OS X available for every cheap ass out there with some shitbox PC would ruin the Mac culture.
It’s like saying lets make it legal for humans to mate with dogs…in other words just disgusting.
The best part of the poll is the hilarious comments posted in response.
Here’s an example that rivals anything seen on
Comedy Central ! :
by Sean Harrington
“Gotta go with a big “NO” on this one.
Why cut the amount of available software to 1/10th (20th?
100th?) of what I currently have access to?”
Hahahah! Oh! Stop it, Sean! You’re killin’ me!!
Why not? You could have floppies (what were they, 128MB?) and SCSI back again. From wikipedia:
It should be noted that Windows XP still requires the use of floppy drives to install third-party RAID, SATA and AHCI hard drives. This requirement was only dropped with the introduction of Windows Vista in 2007. To this day (April 2008), most PC motherboards will still attempt to boot from a floppy drive when the on-board ROM BIOS is corrupted.
Heck no. PC Hardware is crap. It might be cheaper, barely, but it is still crap. It would be like getting a Yugo for $400 when for $550 you can get a BMW.
I’d keep my Mac. But I would probably load OS X on my PC.
But how do you prevent someone from buying one of those boxes and upgrading to Leopard
You don’t. Which puts cash in Apple’s pocket twice, and in effect raises the price of that shiny clone box by the upgrade amount.
these lucky OEMs would get the most up-to-date Mac OS X 10.4 Tiger, certified by Apple to work on their specific hardware configurations, while Apple would retain the exclusive to the current Mac OS X 10.5 Leopard.
What happens when Apple does an upgrade (say to Mac OS X 10.6) and the distribution channel is filled with 10.5 machines?
Does Apple wait for the channel to clear before providing cloners with 10.5? Do people who buy 10.5 Macs after a given date get free upgrades? What happens when a cloner tires of second-class treatment, and bundles illegal 10.6 installs?
Seems like a can of worms hardly worth opening, esp. when the best PC’s are Macs.
I’ve posted the idea of releasing Tiger to the PC masses in the past, on MDN. Of course I got it from Cringely who posted the idea along time ago.
What`s that old sayng… something about dead, prying ……..
” width=”19″ height=”19″ alt=”grin” style=”border:0;” />
I would not ditch apple laptops but desktops I would consider ditching, just because I would be able to dual boot and play games when I wanted to for much much less.
Ditch my Mac? Are you crazy?!
@deepdish
That is one great idea!!
even though… how many people would buy an old operating system?
and then there’s piracy (even more than now) because of no activation (not that i would LIKE activation….)
Question:
If Porsche’s Boxer engine was not proprietary, would you ditch your C4 997?
(does anyone need to be reminded that Vista Runs better on a Mac? Does this mean anything to anyone? I mean really!)
I know some people consider these types of asinine non-realities, but for the rest of us sane enough to know . . . . . .
Sigh . . . . .
I’d give up using computers first…
As much as I like the PC hardware that I use at home, I think that Apple should keep OS X on Apple hardware. The current model is one of the reasons why Apple systems are stable and reliable. The general computer user simply wants a computer that works.
The professional system builder in me has a conflict however. I would love to build my data systems with Leopard, but I cannot do to the limited driver availability. I would have the same constraints, if not worse if I chose Linux or Unix. The simple truth is that more drivers are available for Windows.
But this is one of the things that adds to the instability of Windows. Getting all of the different hardware from different manufacturers to run reliably can be a challenge at times. It is a challenge that I enjoy, but it is not for the novice consumer. I say let Windows be difficult and a pain in the ass to use. Give the consumers something that they can enjoy and want to use every day.
This is a tough question.
The reason it is tough is that we don’t know what it would mean. If it meant that the computers used cheaper parts and there were lots of problems with compatibility, etc; then no. If however the third parties had decent products that worked well, I would certainly consider it. I would especially consider a cheapo $500 Dell or HP minitower that ran OSX as a replacement for my office machine (the one I use for word processing, e-mail, etc.) which is an aging G4 workstation.
However, for my main workstation, I would probably stick with a MacPro.
Licensing OSX to other vendors would put Apple out of business.
It boggles the mind that no one… including MDN, it seems, is capable of basic elementary-level arithmetic.
Macintosh Computers cost between $500 and $5,000.
OSX costs $129.
What do you think they make more money on?
Same thing goes with iPods and iTunes…
Does Apple make more money selling $.99 tracks or $300 iPods?
The software is important as it drives hardware sales. One version behind or not, licensing OSX would result in only the die-hard Mac enthusiasts keeping their Macs. It would relegate the Mac to mere small-genre cult status again. While some of us here might like that on some level, it is simply no way to do business.
Now, everyone… please, please, please…. I implore you all to remove your collected heads from your asses and drop this ridiculous topic once and for all.
Lim… Floppies held 1024K. Also 400K and 800K. That’s it. the ill-fated SuperDisk held 128MB.
Why, O, WHY do people keep dredging up this crap?
Apple is Apple and the Mac is a Mac and OS X is OS X BECAUSE Apple designs and builds it ALL.
The cost of tech support for the zillion and one possible PeeSea configurations alone would probably kill off Apple.
Give it up, ferchrissakes!
Not enough options in the questionnaire.
If an appropriate replacement was singing a siren song, maybe.
But it would have to compete on so many levels, not least looks.
Gizmodo’s poll is probably very representative of everyday buyers and users. NOT.
There’s a reason there aren’t enough questions. Pollsters steer you down the route they want you to go, strengthening their statistics, otherwise too many options would mean to broad a spread.
If OSX was released for PC hardware I would keep my iMac.
Why? Because its an incredibly elegant computer for the home. Sure, there might be more powerful out there, but who cares! Anyone here really get a stopwatch out each time they run some computational task? Thought not.
I Apple did go down this route, I suspect the non-office installed base wuld significantly increase, but sales would not (Damn Pirates)!
Long live the Mac.
Please read:
http://gagravaar.wordpress.com/2008/04/02/theres-a-very-good-reason-why-it-just-works/
Put simply, Mac OSX on open hardware is not a Macintosh.
It’s a morass of low-budget, crap hardware with badly written drivers that would make OSX as buggy as Windows.
Windows users – just put your friggin hand in your pocket and pay for quality hardware for chrissakes. If you’re not willing to do that, then piss off back to Windows-land and stop complaining.
Why do you think you are contemplating the Mac anyway? Because you’ve been told it’s reliable?
THERE’S A VERY GOOD REASON WHY THAT IS THE CASE, APPLE MAKE THE WHOLE WIDGET.
OK, how about if Apple:
– would only release the last release of a previous OSX major version to RELIABLE PC manufacturers (say HPQ, but I may be misguided here — maybe a smaller company with an excellent quality control record would be more appropriate –read: controllable) ;
– would shift (or enhance) its attempts to prevent OSX to be installed from all non-Apple PCs to allowing installation on these reliable boxes only. Maybe every version of OSX should maintain some sort of encrypted list of acceptable hardware signatures.
This is much more leniant than MS’s Genuine Advantage scheme. Besides, refinements can be brought to Apple’s verification scheme by packaging them in the unavoidable minor system updates, which will be no doubt required to fix the last remaing driver and security issues.
@Willie G
I’d normally agree with you however there could be a little mileage to the licensing of older versions. I mean for example. How many Mac users would want to move back to Tiger now Leopard is finally low on bugs? Not many I’ll wager. 10.5.2 is behaving well so far and 10.5.3 is being seeded to developers.
What could be trialled is for Apple to say do a deal with a few hardware companies for Tiger on a specific sub set of popular semi-low end business machines. With the proviso that Macs are sold for any true workstation scenarios. Run this deal as a loss leader for a specific amount of time. Then use this time to get more IT companies clued up on Macs.
Then say after a year when they get a little traction in the general enterprise market and a few more IT departments on their side Apple could build a simple Business box. Basic graphics card, just a bit above minimum RAM, basic Core2duo processor, one firewire port and 2 USB ports, an extra couple of PCI slots and enough RAM slots to take it up to say three gigabyte. Maybe a mid height tower. Still stylish but made of the composite plastic they use on the white MacBooks to keep the price down. They could be the sort of price a decent worker’s PC goes for so there is still some profit in it for Apple.
To keep it out of the consumer market it could be sold only in bulk and to business or education customers (like they did the eMac). There could be a minimum of 5 machines per order. Businesses could deal direct with Apple and have their own Apple account manager. Don’t sell it through Stores or resellers to guarantee that these Macs are only filling offices, cubicles and schools. That way they could get IT to favour it. They could offer it as a dual boot version with Windows running on a VM for the first year as Macs get more popular in the workplace and they could drop Windows as an option when they get a foothold.
I’d love to see this happen.
There’s always a way and I trust Steve and co to find the careful way to do it.
If Apple certified the precise hardware configuration and also charged a licence fee for each model sold, this could work well for Apple.
Selling a large number of licences for OS X-compatibles, without the expense of building, shipping and supporting a physical product would nicely compensate for any loss of Mac sales. But only a proper Mac will have all the latest bells and whistles right out of the box.
In addition, allowing OS X-compatibles to only be sold with an older generation of OS would differentiate them from proper Macs and would also mean that Apple would sell many more retail copies of the current OS as upgrades. The same goes for iLife and of course there would be considerably more sales of iWork and Apple’s other software and accessories.
Allowing carefully vetted hardware configurations to be sold by third-party manufacturers would also mean that OS X-compatibles are available from more than one manufacturer, which gets round one of the obstacles that currently impede sales to certain customers.
I think that there’s an inevitability that this will happen at some point. With Vista stalled and Microsoft visibly faltering, this could be a very timely opportunity to make a bold move.
Moot question. As long as Steve Jobs is alive no clone will have OS X.
There is much more profit in hardware than software. Apple is a hardware company that sells software, not a software company that sells hardware. It would be an uncharacteristically stupid move for Apple to give their profits away to competitors. It doesn’t matter whether or not I’d give up a Mac for an eMachine running OS X. It will never happen.
If the other hardware manufacturers want to compete, they should use Apple’s business model. It isn’t patented. They don’t even have to do any thinking, just imitating. All they have to do is get rid of Windows, go out and acquire a distro of UNIX, and create a vertical solution.
We don’t need Apple to give away the store and ruin its bottom line for its investors and weaken its position until we can’t buy Macs any more. It would be better if there were more apples in the orchard, not because we’d buy them, but because the competition would spur Apple to greater excellence (if such a thing is possible).
If human-human interface guidelines were under as strict control and passion as computer-human interface guidelines, the headline would be “If Apple’s Mac OS X were available …” not “was available”.
But it ain’t.
You can take my Mac, when you pry my cold, dead fingers off the mouse.
Why enjoy Leopard on cheap hardware? Its like driving a Ferrari with a Mini Cooper engine.
Mac is quality time.
Windows and cheap computers are a waste of time.
I strongly disagree that we should ever consider releasing any version of OS X on PC hardware. It would absolutely destroy Apple’s development and support model that makes Apple’s business possible and makes Apple profitable. Steve Jobs might as well nuke 1 infinite loop as go for this horrible idea.
LG & MPS
Exactly-
LinuxGuyAndMacProdigalSon:
If you understood history you would know Steve Jobs killed the clones in the 90’s because clones were siphoning Apple profits. I don’t think that Jobs has changed his position about clones in 20 years. If you doubt me, give Jobs a call, and ask him.
Some time down the track, perhaps, Apple could certify a quasi second Mac compatible supplier by allowing the company Filemaker (owned by Apple in a hands off kind of way) to build and sell Mac clones in specific, but not necessarily exclusive configurations.
Filemaker could even resurrect the Claris name and produce desktop machines using the Intel CPUs Apple doesn’t.
For example, they could have an ultra-thin desktop with integrated graphics & DVI out (VGA dongle supplied), the usual suspects out the back plus 1 expansion slot – think a shrunken desktop XServe for the average office worker; a mini-tower with a choice of integrated or dedicated graphics, 3-4 expansion slots, DVI out and all the usual ins/outs; and different form-factor laptops (12″ and 14″ wide screen perhaps). These could specifically target the corporate sector but also be available to everyone who wants them.
I think we could count on Filemaker to make some stylish, quality kit that differentiates itself from it’s fruity parent company. Filemaker could also be free to offer the machines with your choice of OS – OS X, Windows or Linux.
That way the corporate IT drones (and every other drone) could no longer bang on about being ‘locked’ into one hardware supplier (I know, these drones always conveniently ignore the fact that with a Dell they are effectively locked into one OS supplier).
Discuss….
Wow, MDN has managed to dig up the only idea that would be WORSE for Apple than licensing their OS to Dell and the like. The Mac enjoys modern, superior software partly because the user base (and thus the developer base) is so willing to move quickly with Apple’s new technologies. This daft notion of licensing old versions would keep developers from using the new technologies in each OS X release and give Microsoft etc. two extra years to catch up.
People are far more willing to pay for hardware than they are for software, and this is getting progressively more so. Apple is smart enough to see this, and will not be replacing hardware profits by trying to be another Microsoft.
Those of us who were NeXT users back when NeXT got out of the hardware business can tell you that trying to run an advanced OS on generic hardware is a royal pain in the ass. Sure, once you get it installed everything’s just dandy, but having to check your shopping list of components against the hardware compatibility guide was time consuming and annoying.
I think Apple *should* offer OS X to the HPs and Lenovos of the world, at a unit price that equals their margin for a mid-range Mac, but I wouldn’t buy a non-Apple machine myself.
-jcr
I would like to see the mac mini be a little more competitively priced or specced though, its like the black sheep of the mac family, unloved. It has massive potential as a pc users first change over mac product, I’m expecting a flood of replies saying that its a good product now but I think its fair to say it hasnt been the success it could be.
The only reason the psystar shambles can exist is because of a gap in the market, apple filled these gaps ipod wise and cheap copies barely get any press or sales.
A partnership based on table scraps will not work. Let’s face it, Apple brand is attached to OSX no matter where it’s sold, selling one version back is just such a non-starter on so many levels.
I think one maybe two other high quality selected hardware providers would be good as licensees. Sure don’t want the masses that have access to Windoze mucking up the joint.
Apple should never license OS X to anybody else. In the PC world the chief source of grief to PC users is the cheap junk churned out by low cost box assemblers. They are the crack dealers of the computer industry and Apple should have nothing to do with that lot.
One important take-home message from this unscientific poll is that 61.2% of the non-Mac using respondents said that they would switch if they could get OSX on the hardware of their choice. Apple’s business reasons for ignoring this opportunity have been endlessly discussed, and may continue. They’ll be great arguments until they decide to do in, at which time it will “just work” just like everything else from Apple.
I used to own a couple “UMAX” machines when Apple licenced out thier OS and they ran great. I would consider buying a different hardware set up if it suited my business needs better than an Apple Mac.
There’s nothing I’d like to do more than ditch my crappy 24″ iMac 2.8gz and OS 10.5 for a Dull Optiplex 745 running M$ Vista (badly) like I have at work. That way people wouldn’t come round my house and do nothing but tell me how my iMac is so much better than their PeeCee. It’s such a chore, that I just wanna be a robot like everyone else..
What people don’t understand is Macs run so well as they have set hardware. As soon as you throw bundles of new hardware in the OS will be thrown into a shit heap like Windoze. Plus Apples hardware is so good anyway, why you’d need to get some b grade hardware I will never know. You get what you pay for people…
A better idea would be for Apple to release Openstep or Nextstep for PC. Then they get some of the apple advantages, without the nice GUI and amazing enhancements of OSX. Heck, they might as well even open source Nextstep/Openstep.
I haven’t purchased a non-Apple CPU [other than Palm Pilot-esque devices] for 22 years…
The following answer might surprise:
YES, I WOULD consider purchasing non-Apple Hardware.
In fact I am currently because Apple is not offering products to fill needs I have.
I was faithful during the earlier Mac Clone era. Which offered some interesting CPU’s, but I didn’t think very highly of them [especially the Newer machines with all of their incompatibilities, and under the hood, compared to Apple Iron/Silicon].
But Apple is ignoring several key markets by FAILURE to produce a product for those market segments:
Apple has never satisfactorily replaced the PowerBook G4. The MacBook IS NOT a satisfactory replacement for the 12″ PB G4 for on the go professionals needing professional graphics capability. The MacBook does not satisfactorily run some Pro Apps [due to the MacBook’s CHEESY integrated Intel graphics chipset]. Hell, it won’t even play EA games!
Apple has a HUGE dearth in the area of desktop CPU’s between the MacMini [integrated Intel Graphics again] and the MacPro tower. In between is a succession of all-in-one [read as single point of failure] iMac’s [most of which with more integrated Intel Graphics cheese]. Not everyone needs a 50 pound plus CPU, Mr. Jobs! Apple needs to produce a 2-Slot, 2 Internal HD bay, one Optical “In-between” desktop CPU for those of us who need more than a Mini but less than a Mac Pro.
Education: Apple is completely missing out on the new ULCML [Ultra Low-Cost Moble Laptop] market created by ASUS [and it’s eee PC] and now being joined by the likes of HP [with their new Mini-Note 2133] and rumored to be joined by Dell soon. Education is a big market for Apple, and expect many school districts to be buying these under $600 Retail price Laptops for their charges instead of MacBooks from here on out. The MacBook Air is very pretty and sexy, but these low end [and mostly Linux based] laptops are more than capable enough for the K-12 crowd, are smaller [in at least two dimensions], lighter, and anywhere from more than a third to upwards of a tenth of the price! APPLE! WAKE UP!
Lastly, on the subject of Education… Apple REALLY needs to get their act together on WHEN they offer educational solutions. Making new product announcements at MacWorld [in the eld days] or at WWDC is TOO LATE for school districts who’s budgets are submitted and approved on a fiscal year that typically ends at the end of May or June. Educational purchasers are making their FINAL decisions NOW, not in two months. Apple you need to move up your educational efforts to match your educational customer’s schedules. Whatever it takes, lest you lose market share and sales.
I’m as big of an Apple fan as most are likely to see. I bleed 6-colors when cut, I’ve been a customer of Apple since 1979 and a Mac Driver FAITHFULLY since Leap Day 1984 [all the sooner I could get a Mac 128k]. But Apple isn’t perfect and they need to step it up if they wish to continue and improve on their recent successes.
Respectfully,
— Hano
To further elaborate on the PB G4 Vs. MacBook paragraph… Sort of a pre-emptive reply:
For someone who’s toted around a 12″ PB G4 since 2003 [and bought a second one in 2006]: the MacBook is not capable enough, the 15″ MacBook Pro is too big and heavy, and the MacBook Air is to compromised in terms of ports and CPU power to be adequate replacement machines.
We want a 12″ MacBook Pro! The Air is not what we need. [We could live with a 13″ MacBook Pro, but not any bigger than that]
— Hano
Kind of funny when people say PC hardware is crap when the same stuff is used to build Macs.
On top of that, you have far more options on a PC in terms of video cards and other peripherals.
@ jj: “wow only 16% say they stick with windows.? Zune Tang is in a small group…”
Zune Tang will likely respond with some comment about “real” computer users being too busy to take stupid polls. . . or something like that.
Stuart and others…
You should remember that Apple still holds the Power Computing brand which it acquired for $100 million of Apple stock back in September 1997.
I don’t know if the recipients held onto the stock, but that would be about $2.5 billion today which would have been a pretty neat return.
@Hano….I think you are comparing apples and oranges. Basically you seem unhappy with Apple because they do not have a 12 inch notebook and the air, which has its own niche market, is not a substitute. However, I do not think it is fair to compare the professional level G4 Powerbook to a Macbook but rather the laptop that replaced it at the professional level, the MBP.
Pystar – one guy in his basement.
(Probably stunned)
As a long-time and extensive user of both Mac and non-Mac hardware I have to say that, not only do I prefer Mac OS [any version] over any version of Windows, but I’m also still liking the hardware a lot better. Apple has had, and is having, some quality issues with their hardware, but their customer service usually helps make up the difference, and their overall hardware quality still kills most everything else out there. If OS X is authorized for release on non-Mac hardware I just hope that it does not become a trend toward Apple slowing down it’s hardware development. The Mac is most definitely a wonderfully unique machine in the realm of desktop computing – always has been, and always will be.
As Apple’s market share increases, the size of each niche served by Apple increases. At some point, it will be worth their while to offer a mini tower and smaller laptops. If Apple offered these things, I believe this whole urge to go with non-apple hardware would dry up and blow away. The claims of an 80% hardware markup just don’t stand up to scrutiny. Given a choice between Apple and non-Apple in the form factor they want, people would take Apple.
Perhaps we’ve reached the point where a mini-tower would be a viable product for Apple. If it holds only 2 harddrives, 2-3 PCI cards, and has a single processor socket, it won’t compete with Mac Pros, but would be a very attractive “semi-pro” or high end home computer.
As for the 12″ Powerbook replacement, I replaced mine with a MacBookAir and it sure seems like a significant upgrade to me. You’re never going to get an ultraportable with standalone graphics, so get over it. If you need that, buy a MacBookPro.
“…one twist that we always found interesting is the idea of Apple releasing Mac OS X one version behind to selected OEMs.”
I usually march in lockstep with Mac daily news’s advice, but not on this topic. This is the definition of brand dilution. Apple is a company with one of the strongest brands in the world (strength being defined as a consumer’s association with the product and its maker — think the opposite of Unilever). I understand the logic behind position, but this “give them a taste” strategy also stratifies the customer’s OS experience. Apple would be making a huge mistake in the long term.
LEOPARD FOR ALL!!!!!!
or Apple could release a mainstream mac that supports nice graphics cards, at least 2 hard drives, is easy to work on, and DOESNT HAVE A BUILT IN LCD!!!
What I don’t get is why so many here think all PC hardware is crap. Aren’t they running Intel and AMD processors? Aren’t they using Nvidia graphics cards? Aren’t they using WD or Seagate drives?
It comes down to the motherboard, peripherals, and memory. Sure, if you buy that $400 PC from Best Buy, you’re headed for disaster. But I’ve built plenty of systems in my day that were rock solid and had quality components. Don’t confuse the hardware with the OS. Linux on a home built system with good components is very stable system. It would be the same for OS X. And while a good home built system costs more than your Dell or Best Buy PC, its still far less than an equivalent Mac Pro.
I’m personally upset that Apple won’t sell me the system I want. I don’t want to spend $3000 for a Mac Pro. And I want more than what the iMac offers. I do video editing but as a hobby, not a business. Either give me a system that I can upgrade or make OS X available for systems that I can upgrade.
tt:
“or Apple could release a mainstream mac that supports nice graphics cards, at least 2 hard drives, is easy to work on, and DOESNT HAVE A BUILT IN LCD!!!”
It appears that we are the one niche market Apple has no interest.
License OSX 10.3. Even if a PC user switches to 10.3, it’s better than Vista.
To Tiger, logistics and Willie G,
Bravo, your observations are spot on as to why this idea would not work. MDN should get a clue.
Another thing to consider is this… despite numbers showing that 28% of loyal Mac users indicate they would keep using a Mac, I am extremely dubious those numbers would hold up.
In the heyday of the original Mac clones, it was just such “loyal” Mac users that were abandoning “expensive” Macs and going after the cheaper clones. At the time, I was a member of a MUG, and considering that just being a member of such a group predicates being a dedicated and loyal Mac user (otherwise, why join one?), most MUG members were eager to pick up a clone as soon as possible.
If MDN’s take were to come to pass, I wouldn’t expect today’s “loyal” Mac users to be any different. All else being equal (the difference between Tiger and Leopard not withstanding), smart people are going to let price determine what they buy. Macs would be a commodity by then. I’m not dissing Apple’s design aesthetic, but only a moron buys a computer based on how it looks. Excepting a very small minority, Leopard would not be a big enough draw to keep Mac users paying a premium (however small it might be) for Apple hardware. I have no doubts most would have no problem “downgrading” to Tiger.
Apple, please give the people what they want.
I, for one, am so over the polarized EVERYTHING in this country. I have bought about a hundred PC’s and NO Macs because I can’t stand being TOLD what to do by anyone for any reason. Especially when it comes to PC standards both hardware AND software.
Open architecture is how we got the great hardware and amazing computer market penetration in the first place. And now (that you switch to enjoy the results) you hijack the technology and force us to by it in your pretty box ONLY. What is that ego or are you just that elitist? Either way, it’s ugly.
If I could by the CURRENT Mac OS I would dual boot all of my personal machines TOMORROW and maybe switch altogether in time. IF you would release the OS, you might be able to reach the economies of scale to sell a great product at a competitive price instead of forcing your ideas down the throat of your customers (and potential converts like me) and ripping us off.
Proprietary sucks and it costs the consumer (us) more money. Apple, the war is over, if you choose for it to be, AND YOU WON!!! Please release the Mac OS so we can all see the light and spread the word!!
Is wouldn’t “ditch” my Mac but I’d be tempted to try it out. Maybe as hardware improved, buy the less expensive stuff. It’s the OS part of the widget that is most important. If it works for less. Why not?
Pie in the sky to even consider it though.
Heck yeah, I’d be running OS X on a Dell XPS M1330 in a heartbeat.
“idea of Apple releasing Mac OS X one version behind to selected OEMs. “
For an OS which is perpetually about a version behind Windows in terms of features and software availability this would be a very bad move.
The great Mac Myth of Apple controlling the whole widget thus producing a superior hunk of hardware died a painful and ignominious death during the Invasion of the Clones of the 20th century. Many Mac users gladly paid less cash for clones with the Mac OS and were quite content. When Jobs saw that licensing his OS to the clone manufactures cause a drop in Apple profits, Jobs killed the clones. It wasn’t because the clones were lower performing imitations of real Macs, it was because the clones were less expensive and equal in performance to the Macs that compelled Jobs to annihilate the competition.
It is pure fantasy that Apple fabricates a better machine because Apple sells both the hardware and software in a complete package. Apple may develop the software, but overseas manufacturers using off the shelf and nonproprietary hardware assemble the boxes than hold the OS. The standards of design (and by that I mean functionality versus estheticism) and degree of quality control in box assembly dictates the absolute quality of the final machine. Put OS X in a well fabricated PC and the PC will function just as well as a similarly designed and speced Mac.
I’d love something between the Mac Pro and a mini. I have an awesome display that I’d like to match to HW appropriate to my needs. The mini isn’t enough. The Pro too dear. GPU choice is important.