At WWDC 2010 in June, “there is nothing to show on the new Mac OS X 10.7 running on AMD this time, so the smarter move is to focus on the iPhone OS, the cash cow and the main force behind the iPhone/iPod Touch and now the iPads,” Desinformado writes.
“But to accomplish the total expansion of Mac OS X to AMD, Apple will need support from AMD directly in order to gain access to the processor technology that will make [sure] OS X flies on those new 6X Core Phenom processors,” Desinformado writes. “AMD provides working prototypes of its latest processors and video cards to guarantee the quicker transition to the PC while AMD automatically profits if Mac OS X runs on any AMD equipped PC… This tme it won’t be just a Mac with AMD inside, it will be Mac OS X running on any pc or at least on certain pcs with Intel or AMD chips.”
Desinformado writes, “Apple is now in a stronger position, not to just clone the mac, but to launch the PC version of Mac OS X because the iPhone and the iPad are generating enough profit to justify this kind of risky move where the only one [it] hurts will be Microsoft .”
Full article here.
MacDailyNews Take: Maybe somebody (see quote below) was a little bit too early again?
“iPod success paves the way for Mac OS X on X86. People have argued for years for and against the release of Mac OS X on Intel (and AMD) commodity hardware, but Apple derives such a large portion of its revenue from hardware that doing so could potentially damage the company beyond repair. But, what if Apple replaces that lost Mac hardware revenue with iPod revenue? Steve Jobs would then be free to drop what amounts to a hydrogen bomb on Microsoft. Mac OS X that runs on ‘regular’ off-the-shelf x86 hardware. Or partner with a Sony, for example – to ensure quality… Sell enough iPods and the OS war is on again in a big way – and for real this time. Steve Jobs knows this and that’s why, right now, iPod is much more important than Mac hardware to Apple.” – SteveJack, MacDailyNews, March 04, 2004
I LOVE this. Lets see what AMD can do with OS X.
AMD maybe, but I don’t believe for a second that there will ever be another (authorized) clones while Jobs is alive.
Well,Jobs is dead now..
I can imagine a time when Apple will stop selling high-end desktop workstations, and license the OS to a tightly-held group of third party manufacturers. I don’t see them getting out of the laptop business anytime soon.
The upside would be faster corporate adoption of OS X, which would chum the water for further adoption of their mobile technologies. Given Microsoft’s draconian licensing fees, the current economy, and the superior TCO of Mac OS X, it could have seismic effects upon Microsoft’s overall leverage in the marketplace.
Steve Jack is completely wrong on this one.. Apple is not concerned with marketshare. They’ve made that abundantly clear.
Or… What if we’ve reached the point where Apple wants to get away from making boxes? OS X is the Mac, not the hardware. With the shift to the cloud, the box matters even less. Why not let a few clone makers run OS X. Dell?
No clones!
As I said the last time a post like this came up. I’m sure Apple is talking to AMD. It would be poor management not to constantly examine options.
I’m sure they have prototypes running right now in some form. In finance circles it’s called hedging. Same theory applies.
It does not mean that a change is pending or even under serious consideration. It’s more likely someone trying to pump AMD stock or short intel.
“Why not let a few clone makers run OS X. Dell?”
————————-
Because Apple is a vertical integration “systems” company, not hardware, not software, but both.. That has been the cornerstone of their success.. It allows them to control the whole user experience which is where Apple shines.
Article is mental masturbation–AMD people are seen at Apple’s office, and this guys is blowing sticky wads all over himself extrapolating that into OS X on generic hardware.
Not ever gonna happen, particularly now that Apple has iPhone/iPad bringing money in by the truckload.
Supporting generic PCs would be a nightmare for Apple, as well as a staffing explosion Apple is not at all interested in just for the joy of getting OS X onto low end commodity PCs.
The cost and complexity (and people required to do it) of getting OS X onto generic PCs has nothing to do with supporting closely related CPUs–that is by far the easiest part, particularly considering that OS X was running on completely unrelated processors long before it was OS X (Intel/Moto/Sun fat binaries long ago in NextSTEP.)
Supporting generic PCs means supporting thousands of motherboards, video cards, I/O cards, firmwares, etc. etc. etc., millions of hardware combinations where Apple would either have to make do with the type of slipshod equipment manufacturer written drivers that have haunted windows since the beginning, or devoting huge staff resources to writing (or at least heavily auditing) drivers in house.
What could be more margin-reducing (and we now how Apple likes its margins) than having to employ an army of programmers to provide support for commodity PCs.
I don’t think so. This opens OS X to the same fragmentation and commodity box assembler problems that Microsoft and Linux face. Apple has shown it wants no part of that, and in fact, Apple has moved even further away from such a model by purchasing P.A. Semi and creating its own chips.
Apple has always defined itself as a hardware company, not a software company (even though the software makes the hardware extra special).
Apple may be talking to AMD about AMD becoming a fabricator for Apple’s chips.
It may be the software, stupid- but it’s actually the hardware that sells Macs. The software is a bonus. No clones, no crap. I still need a computer even if I had a Touch, Pad, and phone. No Dell iMacs, please! Another mac advantage- hardware-software integration. You Know Google is going after that! What’s the deal here, we all need something new to fantasize about, even if it’s a lousy idea?
But why? So these mix and match PC hardware providers can make a mess of the OS. How exactly would this benefit the “users experience” which Apple strives?
Again, I ask what is the point? To take over Microsoft’s OS on the PC? Why? Who cares. Apple is changing computing, MS is stuck in the 90’s with no way out.
That’s not thinking different, it sounds like revenge or spite. Why would they waste there time.
OS X on AMD – only if Apple buys the company. Otherwise NO CLONES! Not unless you really crave that unreliability that Windoze hostages seem to take pride in.
In what universe does it make sense that Apple would go down the clone route again? Hasn’t Apple *finally* convinced the tech press at large of the superiority of vertical integration, and the inferiority of Microsoft’s “my OS, your hardware, our customers’ frustration” business model?
Edster’s take seems the closest to being accurate. I don’t know why people keep thinking Apple’s suddenly going to stop making hardware – that’s where they make all their money! Their whole advantage is that they make the hardware *and* the software!! Is this not obivous?!? GAH!
errrr … so we all know about VirtualBox 3.2.0 Beta 1, right? It offers experimental support for Mac OS X guests, it seems. Anybody tried it yet?
http://forums.virtualbox.org/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=30287&start=0&sid=62ecf578b98672f4060d89ba1e785350
Hmm I can’t decide whether I’d describe that chain of thought as fanciful or delusional.
This is never going to happen and would be incredibly stupid.
Apple makes a ton of money on Mac hardware because of OS X.
Regardless of what casual Apple observers say, the Mac is a MAJOR part of Apple’s revenue, and they are not going to just give that up.
What is more likely is that other hardware manufacturers will seek to become more like Apple (e.g. HP) seeking to have proprietary OSes to differentiate them from their competitors and yield a premium on their hardware (Good Luck with that, BTW).
However, this is what Apple is all about! To give that up would be stark-racing-mad.
Why is it so difficult for for seemingly intelligent people to understand that Apple is a HARDWARE company not a software company. Yes they obviously make software but that’s not how they make their money. Is this really so difficult a concept to understand or are you clone supporters so cheap that you can’t help but to ignore the facts? Hell it doesn’t matter if it does indeed cause the company’s demise as long as you get that “cheaper” price. Right? If you’re too cheap to buy a Mac, then just shut up, buy a Dell and grin and bear it.
“Apple is now in a stronger position, not to just clone the mac, but to launch the PC version of Mac OS X because the iPhone and the iPad are generating enough profit to justify this kind of risky move where the only one hurts will be Microsoft once you can have Mac OS X running on any Dell, HP, Acer or Lenovo pc.”
Ummm…no. That’s a market share move and Apple is not, nor will ever be, about market share. Apple succeeds on the strength of its margins. Propagating the OS to other machines, whose compatibility Apple will have to police, is a loser.
@Gabrial, it only makes sense in one market: GIVE AWAY OSX & OSX server to enterprise to run on their existing PC hardware, and SELL iPhones & iPads to them.
Apple is a hardware company only in that they design hardware and software to make up their systems. The actual hardware assembly is done elsewhere; how much more tin-bending can they be doing beyond prototyping? When Apple was pretty much just the Macintosh, the computer *was* the business. The moves to more industry-standard components in the late ’90s and Intel a few years ago were necessary steps. But now that they have been branching out with iPod, iPhone, iPad, & who knows exactly what the server farm will be for (besides Steve Jobs & a few other very closely held people), they have more diversity, stability, and mindshare, and can afford to risk other “experiments” with the Mac. I don’t think marketshare is the objective. I think SteveJack has a point I’d like to conceptually entertain more.
theloniousMac writes, “Or… What if we’ve reached the point where Apple wants to get away from making boxes? OS X is the Mac, not the hardware. With the shift to the cloud, the box matters even less. Why not let a few clone makers run OS X. Dell?”
Won’t happen! There could be any number of reasons AMD was spotted on the Apple campus. Maybe it’s related to AMD’s video offerings, or that new chip foundry AMD built in upstate New York. (Someone’s got to build those Apple-designed chips.)
As it is, Apple even today does not make “boxes”; it farms out manufacturing to its Asian suppliers. And given the margins Apple earns on its hardware sales, there’s simply no way it will ever consider becoming a software OEM to hardware makers.
What Apple *might* consider one day is allowing, say, HP or IBM to manufacture and support Apple-branded hardware specifically for the Enterprise sector.
Nope.
No clones.
No clones and third-party licenses for the same reasons that have been there since Apple almost went belly-up the last time.
Desinformado is being either merely disingenuous, or fell off the turnip truck yesterday.
MDN word: “really”
CPU speculation for Macs is fine, but it is speculation with nothing but quicksand to stand on.
Apple has plans that go out at least 10 years. A lot has to be worked on with vendors, analyzed and tested if you want to be ready for the future, and Apple is not going to tell us in advance.
You can be Apple has contingency plans for dozens of hardware options.
What we don’t know is if & under what circumstances they will give a GO to a new hardware option.
Apple is a hardware company. Maybe they will build some AMD-drive devices, but I don’t see os/x for non-Apple hardware happening.