Do you want OS X with that PC?
Good morning, Steve.
I know you don’t listen to us, you’ve got a team of experts who display more expertise in a day than I will in a lifetime, but I’ve got the keyboard so I’m writing anyway. I’ve got the idea, you get your experts to find the solution. My idea, my dream, is OS X on an affordable but highly customizable computer.
It’s not a new idea by any means. In fact, if you sniff around the dark and gloomy nether regions of the internet, you can find out how to do this already. But I, and many others, don’t want to do that.
My dilemma is I envy PC users. No, not all their viruses and spyware, although that is pretty neat getting all those free programs that install themselves—that’s what I call user friendly…
No what I envy is that PC users can configure their PCs to their hearts delight. Whereas us Mac users, unless we hand over our life savings for a PowerMac/Mac Pro, then we are considerably limited in just how much we can customize our Macs.
The reality is, I want to be able to buy the computer I want with the OS I want. The problem of course is that that requires a box with a lot more air in it than Mac minis or iMacs have.
All things considered, and given this is an Apple friendly site, OS X is currently the best of the big three desktop operating systems. So that’s the OS I want. But the other two run on any computer. (I won’t go into the complexity of getting Linux working though...). They offer broad and compelling choice. I want OS X to have broad and compelling choice too, but on any budget.
Let’s have a poll
I’m going to poll the faithful and we’ll see if they agree. Sounds kind of uncomfortable, and yes it could get messy as the blow torches come out.
Now polls are statistics and not very scientific ones at that. Statistics can be interpreted any way you like (kinda like the Bible). It just depends who’s doing the interpreting. However, polls can still be a loose guide. If there’s a flood of votes in one direction, and given most voters here would be Mac faithful, then it would indicate there is some desire in the Mac community for a more option.
The poll consists of three options:
Option 1: Just keep things the way they are. No change at all. Maintain the status quo.
Option 2: Introduce a low-end Mac in a tower or desktop case, fully customizable either pre or post purchase with whatever you want.
Option 3: Roll over, lay down, give up the fight to keep OS X off PCs.
Options 2 and 3 would mean users could install whatever they want, such as graphics cards of choice, drives, additional cards such as tuners, memory card readers and so on. Of course it also would mean greater support and conflict issues. A tightrope to be walked, one that Apple has never shown much for enthusiasm for. It all depends how it’s managed though.
And so to the poll:
Have a vote and then discuss here what you voted for and why. Hopefully, we really can send a message to Steve. Hopefully, also it will be the message I want sent!
del.icio.us
Digg
Facebook
Slashdot
StumbleUpon
Comments
Sorry, but I want to keep it like it is. I do tech support for PCs for a living, and don’t want that mess to transfer to the Mac world. I like it like it is: simple, easy, it just works.
Option 1 for me. I don’t want to be able to have OS X on PC’s, Apple would no longer have a reason to build such beautiful computers themselves then. I like to be different from my friends also, it’s nice to have something so aesthetically pleasing which works brilliantly whilst they are stuck with grey cases and a system that runs Spyware for a living.
Hey, by the way, 10 points for the first person to explain the in-joke.
It has to be option 3 for me. *sob*
The reason is, if you buy hardware in a well-researched way, you can actually buy a really highly performing computer for very little money. Now, I don’t think apple’s computers are overpriced, but they don’t offer any cheap computers at the moment, except the Mac Mini Core Solo 1.5 GHz, which I’m sorry to say just doesn’t cut the mustard performance-wise, and is more expensive than an higher-performing custom PC can be.
More than this, though, is choice. I’m not a free-market idealist and I don’t think choice is in and of itself a good thing in all situations. But I really really really want to be able to choose which hardware companies I use, and so I hate hate hate being locked into Intel because I love Macs, and because for many years AMD have occupied what I consider to be the “sweet spot” of performance-price-power. (I recognise this is changing with Intel’s new m-architectures, but I STILL WANT TO CHOOSE GODDAMMIT!
Basically then, my vote comes down to this: the idea of buying a computer with an intel processor, intel chipset and intel integrated graphics makes my skin crawl. However, so does running windows on a custom rig. There is only one solution, then, though it will never happen: open OS X, for any hardware.
Option 3 is out of the question. That would cause Apple to enter the quagmire that Microsoft is in. Someone, somewhere is going to find incompatible hardware that Apple didn’t anticipate and they will blame the problems on OS X. To keep its user satisfaction high, Apple needs more control over the platform.
Option 1 is most likely.
Option 2 looks possible, given the new Intel platform, but if it happens, Apple is going to have an enforce a strict compatibility list.
Apple released Bootcamp right after someone figured out how to do it. I think the only reason Bootcamp exists is to facilitate customer support, because with Bootcamp they’re dealing a configuration that they know and understand; without Bootcamp they might see problems they can’t figure out. That seems to speak for Option 2 or 3.
Option 3 is out of the question. That would cause Apple to enter the quagmire that Microsoft is in. Someone, somewhere is going to find incompatible hardware that Apple didn’t anticipate and they will blame the problems on OS X. To keep its user satisfaction high, Apple needs more control over the platform.
Option 1 is most likely.
Option 2 looks possible, given the new Intel platform, but if it happens, Apple is going to have an enforce a strict compatibility list.
Apple released Bootcamp right after someone figured out how to do it. I think the only reason Bootcamp exists is to facilitate customer support, because with Bootcamp they’re dealing a configuration that they know and understand; without Bootcamp they might see problems they can’t figure out. That seems to speak for Option 1 or 2.
Option 1. Apple is a hardware company so giving up the opportunity to sell your “bread and butter” products is commercial suicide. The only way to avoid this problem would be for Apple to charge much more for the OS or change their business model entirely, which obviously won’t happen overnight.
Hmm...... I’d love life if I could, with a good conscience, vote option one. But secretly, deep down inside, I’ve always wanted option two to be a reality. I perform everything that I do in a “lowest-budget-possible” way. I still use my old iMac G4 because the money just isn’t there for a new iMac or MacBooks (Pro or not). I would instantaneously fall in love with a low-end inexpensive Mac that I could afford to put on my desk. But then again, option two has it’s downfalls aswell, namely support issue. Option two would create a mad house of problems. My previous work a Windows tech is what led me to be a Mac lover. I do like the Idea Hugmup put forward, though—Option two, but with a strict compatibility list. That sounds like the best bet to me.
Don’t you remember what happened the last time Apple licensed their OS? (Power Computing, StarMax, anyone else remember out there?) They nearly bought the farm. Now just to satisfy your desire you’d rather Apple went into Chapter 11. Monumental selfishness is what that is, complete with tantrums, and profane tirades at being unable to control everything you want to.
Do you even understand how Apple is able to sell “the Apple experience”? Here’s a hint—it rests upon a limited number of hardware configurations, which keeps the complexity of design, maintenance, coding, and support down to manageable and cost-effective levels. Anything but what they’re doing now would take the sheen off the Apple experience and reduce the quality of upcoming products, as they’d be busy putting out the fires of strange configurations everywhere. You see, Apple would have to offer some sort of support to all those configurations. The tech press would crucify them if they didn’t. The whine would go up from sea to shining sea about how Apple had “betrayed their idealism” and so on.
As someone who was a PC user and spent a good part of my spare time fiddlign with PCs, I’m glad that Macs have a limited number of configurations. It’s simpler to keep them running. The hardware that Apple is able to create (and even third-party Apple hardware companies) kicks the living snot out of the PC folks, who sell you cheap trash. Given a choice between forever fixing my machine, as all PC tweakers do, and actually using it, I’ll go with the latter every time.
Grow a brain!
Nice play on the Think Different campaign in Option 1, Chris.
I think it would pay if there were more customizable Macs. Thing is, this is not Apple’s business model, and among the Pros, who buy them Big Macs, it is not regular conduct. It does not pay for Apple, who make more on a complete new sale, and it doesn’t really pay for Pros who would rather just migrate to a completely up to date workstation withing 30 minutes of connecting the FireWire to their old rig.
Then of course there is the small but existent demongraphy of people who like just to upgrade a little bit. Those would benefit. What I could imagine is the following:
A modular Mac. Based on a mini you would add functionality by adding another housing the same size, just as you do with external mini-shaped HDDs now. It would take a special external bus-connector, but there could be an “expansion box” holding say a new graphics-card of your choice (ok, Apple’s selection, but several options), along with all most recent video connectors, and maybe video-in options for HDD recording. Another box could offer the most recent optical drives and card readers. As time passes you swap whatever you feel insufficient. The base would always be a fully functional mini, or optionally a more reduced “CPU module” that just has the CPU & RAM. All in a convenient box, no hassle opening cases. Apple still controls the hardware so there are no support issues. Granted, this is not as much upgrading freedom as you may wish to have, but what do you think about it?
Someone, somewhere is going to find incompatible hardware that Apple didn’t anticipate and they will blame the problems on OS X.
Kind of like Mac users currently do with Windows, eh? And we certainly wouldn’t want Mac people to have to take what they dish out.
They nearly bought the farm.
Which seems to undermine completely the argument that Macs are in any way comparably priced to PCs. If they were, there would be no fear at all of being out-competed in an open market.
Monumental selfishness is what that is
The person who said this, then goes on to say:
I’m glad that Macs have a limited number of configurations. It’s simpler to keep them running.
Who’s being selfish here?
Given a choice between forever fixing my machine, as all PC tweakers do, and actually using it, I’ll go with the latter every time.
Just because you were too stupid to keep your machine running right doesn’t mean that everyone is.
Option 2 please…
Introducing a a customizeable model a-la Dell is not entirely improbable. Having one line, and one line only, keeps the customer support nightmare at a minimum for AppleCare folks.
The online Apple Store already offers some customization when you order your Mac gear so this would be just an extension of that. The only difference is that you have a tower or desktop (pizza box?) case selection with your choice of amenities. That can’t be difficult.
Option 1 is so pre-2006 and will not sustain Apple’s momentum for much longer. Apple shareholders will want more, more, more! So, how does Apple give more with such limited offering? The full-court press will be on Apple to increase revenue - FAST.
They can also opt to keep the “status quo” but I doubt this is what Steve’s got drawn up on his white-board he calls his noggin. Steve’s not about “status quo” for he would not have introduced the iPod and get Apple to tilt toward consumer electronics (CE).
Option 3 is a definite no-no right now. A lot of things depend on this scenario to come to fruition. One is Apple has to transition into a software-only model like M$. For now, scratch that out ‘coz it won’t happen soon. Another, Apple is entirely dependent on its hw lines for the “revenue” and licensing OSX to other vendors would only create competitors to the Mac lines. Scratch that out too. Third, and this has already been explained by others - Apple does not need the headache arising from innumerable hardware configurations.
Nice play on the Think Different campaign in Option 1, Chris.
Indeed. For all the talk about Mac users being more creative and thinking outside the box and blah, blah, blah, I’ve never seen a more subservient group to a single school of thought outside of the Christian Coalition. That doesn’t include all Mac users, of course, but certainly a dispropotionate number.