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
Robotech Infidel, you do more to turn me away from Apple adulation than a thousand years of objective contemplation.
Ians, are you sure you have done the math? “Apple will still make money on the hardware”. This sounds awfully like wishful thinking to me.
It seems to me that it is very unlikely that Apple will go down the path of selling the O/S separately again. Which means those who want the Apple experience at half the price are likely to be disappointed.
Apple is a corporation whose primary responsibility is to its shareholders and its shareholders want the best return on their investment that Apple can achieve.
So go and buy shares in Apple. And then rethink your demands for whitebox Apple computers. Methinks that when you have put your money where your mouth is, you might think a little differently.
Oh, and BB, it’s called irony. You seem to have appointed yourself to the position of official Apple naysayer and insulter of all. Very brave. But also more than a little arrogant. I have long held the view that anyone who has to descend to personal insults to defend their view is automatically acknowledging the weakness of their argument. My challenge to you: Before you post again, review your post and remove all personal insults. Let your argument stand on its merit and have some respect for your fellow travellers. I know from personal experience that you are inclined to jump to conclusions, miss the point of an argument, and incorrectly ascribe motivations to, and underestimate the intelligence and experience of, individuals who feel they have something to contribute.
So Beeeeeeblebrox, to you I say “Subucula tua apparet”. In case you don’t recognise the language it is Latin. In English it would be “Your slip is showing.”
Oh Ians. One more thing about the Math. Apple’s recent financial results show a gross margin of 30% or thereabouts on hardware sales. By my calculation, 30% of the US$1299 for the cheapest iMac is US$259.80. If Apple sold you an ATX compatible motherboard, how much would they make on that?
I don’t think the Math stacks up. Which means it is more than likely that if Apple did what you ask there is a real risk that they would be back where they were in the Sculley era. Do any of us really want that?
You seem to have appointed yourself to the position of official Apple naysayer and insulter of all. -s^2
What I have been saying all along since joining this board...Well said, SydneyStephen. I like that fighting spirit.
As for Ians’ wishful thinking of Apple going down so low and start selling ATX mobos for a profit, hah! I really doubt Apple will play in the ASUSTek or ABIT or SOYO playground. It is not that it is impossible but it would be like BMW or Benz selling you just the engine and buy the kit somewhere else. It just doesn’t fit Apple’s image.
Apple only cares about providing you the whole vertical experience from top to bottom. In a word they want to sell you the whole caboodle from the hardware to software to service.
People say, “Why can’t they offer this ‘vertical’ model to the entire PC universe and make a bundle?”. My answer to that is, “Because it won’t be ‘vertical’ any longer”. Apple does not know how to do business in a ‘horizontal’ model like M$ where they have to cater to every known hw vendor and every industry known to man.
Apple just isn’t that kind of a company. Change Apple will do by small measure at a time. If they will become ‘horizontal’ someday it will take many computer generations to get there.
I’ve reconsidered and actually, what I want is Apple to use BOTH intel and amd processors*. Building systems yourself just isn’t fun, I’ve found, and I *do* think there’d be disadvantages to adapting OS X for all hardware. And actually I don’t see many reasons to limit themselves to intel, whether for the immediate future or the long term. Using both chips sends the message to the companies that they have to compete for their custom, which is as it should be.
*not in the same computers, of course. that would just be silly.
I’ve reconsidered and actually, what I want is Apple to use BOTH intel and amd processors. -Ben
Everyone is entitled to change course now and then as long as the reason is valid, and yours Ben is actually very valid and makes a lot of sense as a business model.
I am not aware of any “lock-in” agreement between Apple and Intel for Steve to go it full force in one swift move last WWDC (2005). And there should be no “exit clause” needed to include AMD CPUs in such an event that Intel becomes unreasonably hard to deal with or that Apple sees good business sense to have AMD on board as a second source.
Whatever Steve saw in the technology roadmaps with his meetings with Paul Otellini, Intel’s up and coming CPUs this year proves that Steve was right. These Intel designs are much more efficient and less power hungry than the G5s they replace whilst these cores execute OSX to levels never before seen.
But a question has to linger. What about AMD 64 and Opteron in Macs? If these cores are very good at handling Windows, Linux, or Solaris, they should also be exceptional at hosting OSX. I am sure Apple has this very question in mind. There is nothing preventing them from having AMD in their lab prototypes much like the precursors to the Intel iMacs. I have one of these in my office at work. DOS-like Darwin executing before the Aqua GUI. Heh, heh, very primitive-looking indeed. This would exactly be what you PC folks would have with an x86 version of OSX.
All in all, I wouldn’t mind at all if AMD is included in the mix. AMD has to prove their designs are better than the upcoming Intels though and from reading the white papers, those designs will be hard to beat. If good competition arises between Intel and AMD for Apple’s Mac bragging rights, I think that would be a good thing for the Mac.
Good point, Ben.
Also this article shows that AMD64 often has better performance than Core 2 in 64 bit applications, which Apple has been touting for its scientific markets for a while.
I suspect that Apple needed to choose one processor vendor in order to negotiate advantageous pricing, but also to ensure that they have early access to new processors. They chose Intel - but they must have looked at AMD. If Apple’s volumes build significantly over the next 4-5 years, they may dilute their buying power by signing up with AMD as well. However, I imagine Intel are working hard to keep Apple entirely in the fold.