“Licensing Mac OS X would make sense on a number of levels, and if you ask me, it would probably help Apple’s bottom line,” Don Reisinger writes for CNET.
“Let’s face it: Apple isn’t happy that it needs to deal with Psystar. And why should it be? The company is a costly nuisance that needs to be dealt with swiftly. But if the court battle lasts too long–or worse, if Psystar finds a way to win, Apple will be forced to deal with a slew of similar Mac clones that will only make maintaining its stranglehold on Mac OS X that much harder,” Reisinger writes.
“That’s why Apple should license Mac OS X to Hewlett-Packard and Dell, the world’s top PC manufacturers. By doing so, it will be able to eliminate the threat Psystar and its clones create, since no one will trust an Open Computer from a no-name compared to Dell and HP. More importantly, it will expand its presence in the PC business and finally get to a place where it can compete on the same level as Microsoft,” Reisinger writes.
MacDailyNews Take: Yawn. You know it’s a boring rehash when, halfway through, we find ourselves yearning for yet another article about Steve Jobs’ pancreas.
Reisinger continues, “Why would HP and Dell accept such an idea? It’s simple: both companies are extremely displeased with Microsoft, after the Vista fiasco, and their enterprise customers don’t want anything to do with their computers, if Vista is installed.”
“Worse, consumers don’t trust Vista, which is why HP and Dell were forced to ‘downgrade’ customer operating systems to XP. Beyond that, both HP and Dell know how highly regarded Apple is, and just having the opportunity to sell Apple software on their own computers would be enough for them to offer Apple a sweetheart deal,” Reisinger writes.
Today’s version of an article we’ve seen far too many times already (it’s like that mythical lone fruitcake that keeps getting mailed around), can be read in full here.
MacDailyNews Take: Based on the “legal arguments” we’ve seen from them so far, Psystar will win the day after the Cubs win the World Series.
No. No. No and no.
Not this again! No. Stay special. Stay the best.
Um, Apple is a *hardware* company. Any passing glance at their financial reports will make this abundantly clear. That said, the software is still the crown jewels, just not the money maker. To license the crown jewels to other *hardware* manufacturers, thus undercutting the lifeblood of Apple, is, to put it politely, the epitome of *stupid*.
MacNScott: Not just “no”, but “HELL NO”.
Apple makes its profits from the sale of its own hardware.
Apple would not make comparable profits by trying to license OS X to third parties – particularly since they’ll be UNDERCUTTING THEIR OWN HARDWARE SALES by doing so.
Honestly, can’t somebody with a rudimentary understanding of logic see how asinine this is already?
MW: economic
Hit Whores!
Whenever Apple news gets slow, this rumor always returns. When will people realize that Apple is a CE company, not a software company. Sure, they make some software, but that is to enhance its hardware strategy.
It’s not going to happen.
Let’s see, Time to spin the rumor wheel
click, click,click,click,click,click,click,click,click,
Steve Jobs is sick,
click,
Apple is making a touch pad computer,
click,
Steve Jobs is dead,
click,
Apple is giving up on AppleTV,
cliiiiiick,
And we have a winner! Apple is going to license OSX!
MDW coming, as it’s coming
I’ve seen the same reaction to this question before: when we were asked if Apple should move to Intel chips and abandon the Motorola/IBM/Apple consortium. Universal opprobrium followed. Never, never, never, NEVER one and all howled.
Same thing here. But something tells me that if Apple retains its single-vendor model forever that it will never exceed its 10% market share by very much.
Truth is that I wouldn’t buy a Dell or an HP machine with OS X for the simple reason that I don’t like their form factors and quality control. I can imagine, however, that there are others who would never use OS X because they don’t like Mac devices: no card readers, a lack of about a gazillion buttons all over the place, no matte screens, etc.
Hmmm. No answers here. The mind remains open.
MDN is dumb to post this article, other than to show how dumb journalists are.
Anyone with a pea-sized brain knows the answer to this question.
The obvious solution would be to stop selling OSX separatly from the hardware. That way the only way to get OSX would be to buy a mac.
These idiots get paid!
And some of the worst are still around!
I don’t get it…
Simple answer: NO
Extended answer: Apple, we need a lower price entry point. Lower the price of the mini. The base price now is higher then when it was first introduced.
Another year, another exhibition of mindless stupidity on this issue.
MacDell? Seriously?
Yes. In addition, it should be available to anyone. I’d like to build my own machine. If Apple were to take a different approach than Microsoft and limit the compatible hardware, it could work.
This is not the 90’s. Nobody wanted the OS back then. The clones were only taking sales away from Apple. Its different now. A lot more people want OS X. And these are not Mac people. Therefore, any sales to them is not a lost sale for Apple.
…and I’m one of those long suffering Cub fans. But I have to agree – next year may never come.
While Apple designs are much better than other computer manufacturers in the market they also have some categories that lack a specific product. There are those of us out there that would welcome a midsize tower from Apple. We don’t want an iMac with a laptop processor and the MacPro is overkill. Where is the computer that goes between those two systems? If licensing OSX to HP meant that we would finally get that system in the market then let’s bring it on. HPs have far too many blinking lights and is overkill on buttons but if it meant that I could get the power that I want for a decent price it wouldn’t be such a terrible thing.
Just let Dell and HP sell Macs on their websites.
“Should Apple license Mac OS X to Dell and HP?”
No.
“If Psystar finds a way to win, Apple will be forced to deal with a slew of similar Mac clones that will only make maintaining its stranglehold on Mac OS X that much harder. That’s why Apple should license Mac OS X to Hewlett-Packard and Dell, the world’s top PC manufacturers.”
Um, someone with deep pockets is behind Psystar. It’s not Microsoft, who have at least as much to lose as Apple does if Psystar wins. It’s probably a box assembler—like Dell or HP. Surrender before the battle? Never. Especially when Psystar’s arguments are so weak.
My ex-wife and I have been gifting the same fruit cake back and forth for years. The secret is protecting the box.
It wouldn’t make sense for Apple to license its OS in the First-World countries where it now has a presence. It would cannibalize its existing sales. The only place where licensing would pay off would be by licensing to poor countries, like the BRIC (Brazil, Russia, India & China) group, for sale only within those countries.
(Only a single vendor should be licensed in each country, and a partnership with the gov’t. in those places should be sought.)
NO … HELL NO !
The beauty of Mac is the integration of a simple, yet elegant operating system with wonderfully stylish computers that work well together. Market share will rise as it becomes obvious that Microsoft can’t get it done. period.
No question … Apple should NOT allow other members of the Top Five to sell OSX. Bad idea in so many ways.
That said, Apple could easily loosen the reins a bit and allow unsupported use of OSX on “sufficiently well designed” PCs. Apple might allow HP to market them as “OSX Ready”. Dell? <shudder> Note, I said unsupported. This means if you gots a problem … YOU gots a problem. This solution would help cut the cost of many of the parts Apple uses to build their Macs – don’t force me to explain that, please.
Licensing or worse will happen unless Apple starts making black or gray computers, toughbooks, mini towers, netbooks, laptops with Firewire etc.
Maybe extremely strict restrictions on what the clone maker can use and do hardware-wise.
Then charge a boat load for the privilege.
There would be an explosion of new model size choses.
But as long as all of clone makers are restricted to a certain list of allowable hardware which Apple has 100% control over, it might be a good thing in the end. As long as Apple gets a large fee and percentage of gross profit from each company.
“Licensing Mac OS X would make sense on a number of levels …”
On none at all as far as I can see. I can’t imagine Apple doing this when they have OS X as a main differentiator to help sell their computers. Why license away the crown jewels?
As for Dell and HP, well Reisinger was only telling us a few days ago that Windows 7 was so good that he – a complete addict for all things Mac he told us – was giving up OS X for it. So what would Dell and HP have to worry about with such an excellent product coming soon? (Of course, Reisinger and we both know it’s nothing special – but he did say it was only a coupe of days back.)
Besides, MS really is teh bomb now. Haven’t you heard? They’ve now got a competitor to Garageband? It’s called Songsmith and they say it’s – wait for it – “songtastic”. I hear Zune Tang has already bought four copies. There’s a video clip of the ‘songtastic” Songsmith over at Macenstein:
http://macenstein.com/default/archives/1942
WARNING persons of a nervous disposition should not view this video. Seriously – it will make your ears bleed.
(Why are Microsoft ads just so bad?)
Oh no, John Dvorak (I mean Don Reisinger) is at it again. I think he has found a weak link int he Mac community where he knows if he agitates mac users with the right topics of debate, he’ll get webhits and CNet will be happy for it.
Anyways, let’s keep this one short, shall we…
Apple failed in the Mac clone market back in the 1990s and Apple is not about to go down that same slippery path again, PERIOD!