OS X for All?
The release of Boot Camp, the Apple authored Windows booting solution, was greeted with a gleeful squeal by the Mac community at large. It was as if, these many years, Mac fans everywhere had been secretly pining to run Windows on their Macs, but just didn’t want to part with the sleek design of the Apple computers in order to actualize their XP dreams. After Apple got their usual dose of massive free publicity, the excitement began to ebb as people fully grasped that, with modern OSes, restarts are no longer things of regularity and dual booting precludes easy sharing of information between the two operating systems.
Once the furor had subsided, people started thinking about virtualization. In the same manner that broadband became the “always on” solution for the ‘net, virtualization is thought to be the “always on” solution for the Mac. For those that rely, to any extent, on Windows only programs virtualization could be a boon. If Virtual PC was worth $249 when it ran with all the speed of a bottom of the line Yugo badly out of tune and running on a single cylinder, running programs at near native speeds would certainly be a compelling solution.
A few moronic luddites excepted, the beta release of Boot Camp was treated as a generally good thing and the promise of future OS virtualization is widely anticipated. Of course, few events do not entail unexpected consequences, and the release of Boot Camp was no different. It got people thinking (Cringely included) about the idea that OS X could, someday, be released to the general population. A bit of the old “quid pro quo” as Hannibal might say. The notion that Windows based computers may be able to dual boot OS X was not viewed through the same rainbow, bondi, brushed aluminum, gray plastic, screw it, ever changing interface theme that Windows XP booting on the Mac was. In fact, many long time Mac fans seem a little scared by the notion.
There are plenty of reasons Apple will never, EVER, release OS X for general consumption. There are arguments about the control of drivers, about the consistency of the hardware, the look of OS X on a generic PC etc. While all the arguments have some merit, none is more compelling than the one where Apple won’t do it because it will kill hardware sales. While there are trivial solutions to the other arguments, the hardware sales issue is seemingly intractable. A big chunk of Apple’s revenue is dependant on sales of Macs. Releasing OS X would, many feel, destroy the primary reason people buy Macs.
That much is true. If you don’t have to buy a Mac to run OS X many people will go for the cheaper option. At this point, feel free to compare a Mac feature by feature with a PC. Chances are you’ll end up in the same ballpark when the exercise is completed. On the other hand, if you just compare cost of entry, the cost of badly designed PC compared to the Mac mini, the picture isn’t as rosy.
By releasing OS X into the wild, so the argument proceeds, Apple’s sales of hardware would follow the path of David Duchovny’s career post X-Files. A few traditionalists still buying Macs for old time’s sake but, essentially, Apple subcontracted hardware would be MIA within a short period. A notion seemingly borne out by past experiences. When Apple tried cloning (too little and too late) in the 90’s they lost a ton of hardware sales to more nimble manufacturers who were both more price and more performance competitive.
Yet, Apple is a much more limber company now. The folks in Cupertino have eschewed the messy business of actually producing Macs (heya Asian subcontractor!) and focus on creating the best designs in the computer world. Thus, it is not out of the realm of possibility that Apple could rely on its newfound manufacturing malleability and gorgeous computer designs to sell hardware. While it is a possibility that people would by Macs in the same numbers as they do now even if there were substantially cheaper options available, that notion is generally greeted with a fair amount of skepticism.
So the question is left up in the air, will Apple actually give up the crown jewel of Macs and release OS X into the wild? True Mac fans hope so. Those that espouse the reasons why they shouldn’t, or won’t, are tacitly saying that Apple can’t compete on either the hardware or software side. They are telling people, in essence, that Apple is inferior to Microsoft on the software side and not nearly as clever as Dell on the hardware side. After all, if Apple designed hardware is truly worth the expense then people will purchase it in sufficient quantities to make the machines profitable. If OS X is truly a better OS, again, the market will ensure profitability.
This is the moment where someone will surely protest that “best” doesn’t always beat “good enough.” Thus, they will opine, Apple cannot afford to actually compete head on with the likes of Microsoft and Dell. A valid argument if you equate success with a 50/50 market split but, all that Apple requires is enough of the market to be profitable. Surely, OS X is good enough to garner the sales neccessary to make it a profitable proposition. Likewise, only the people who doubt the appeal of Mac hardware doubt that it can be profitable in its own right.
The shaking knees of some Apple fans aside, the only real question is: Will Apple ever release a version of OS X for computers not manufactured by Apple subcontractors? Argue as you will about the drivers and other issues, but when Apple thinks about the issue it only thinks about dollars and cents. If the executives at Apple reach the conclusion that it will be in their long term economic benefit to release OS X to the wider world they certainly will. If, on the other hand, they believe that OS X can’t successfully compete with Vista, or that their hardware can’t compete with Dell’s hardware then, of course, they won’t release OS X. How much confidence do they have in the Mac?
del.icio.us
Digg
Facebook
Slashdot
StumbleUpon
Comments
I’m not convinced there is a huge market demand at the extreme low end for Mac OS X on a commodity box pee-cee. At the medium and high end, demand might be higher, but the cost disparity is already small enough to help fence-sitters take the plunge, especially with the new virtualization engines.
But theoretically, one way for Apple to bridge the commodity box gap and maintain its own sales would be for Apple to charge huge $$ for a version of OS X “in the wild”, but offer it “free” on new Macs (and perhaps one free upgrade to sweeten the deal).
Thus, if someone is buying that discounted Dell for $399, but it costs him another $249 for generic OS X (like M$FT charges), he might be more inclined to just go for the MacMini.
Where generic licensing could really come into play is if Apple finally decides to quit pussyfooting and go head on for the enterprise market. On that side, filled with millions of beige HPs and black Dells ripe for the plucking, Apple offers an OS X site license with full support for those legacy PCs. That license, however, has a 3-year time limit (the average hardware upgrade cycle time). After 3 years, generic support ceases, but Apple offers competitive deals on new replacement hardware, since they’re now presumably in the market. But if they still won’t bite, Apple renews the license at a much higher fee.
Will that strategy succeed? It might, if the goal is get OS X on more desktops, allow for commodity licensing, but not hurt Mac sales overall. Just a few thoughts to get the idea mill cranked up…
If Apple ever does it, they will probably put very tight restrictions on the specs of the clone Mac and limit them to the bottom end of the market. Requirements like onboard graphics, single core chip that is soldered in, and other such limits on performance and upgradability.
Then Apple would have an in on the Walmart set and late-night tv shopping gigs. (Where a 30 gig iPod w/video sells for $399, yes three!-nine-nine, + S&H) These are the folks who populate all the bot-farms. They really need to be weaned from Windows. In fact there ought to be a law banning them from buying Windows machines.
“In fact there ought to be a law banning them from buying Windows machines.”
You know, ‘cause there’s no law about some bullshit about… what was it?
Monopoly!
“So the question is left up in the air, will Apple actually give up the crown jewel of Macs and release OS X into the wild? True Mac fans hope so. Those that espouse the reasons why they shouldn’t, or won’t, are tacitly saying that Apple can’t compete on either the hardware or software side.”
Brilliant. Simply brilliant.
The whole article is great. However I think you might have missed a few points.
1. Apple has iPods. Releasing OS X “in the wild” isn’t a matter of short-term survival for them. People will keep buying iPods for years.
2. Will Apple retail OS X or just sell it to the likes of Dell and HP? There are many reasons of iPod’s success among Windows users. But one of them is that they (we, actually) can use the PCs we already have with iPods. So if Apple really needs OS X success, it should let people run OS X on the boxes they got and make it affordable (i.e. retailing OS X for 99-149 dollars). If they don’t need it, they won’t retail OS X AND won’t try cloning. It’s an “all or nothing” situation.
The problem here is that I don’t believe that Apple wants the low-end market; there simply isn’t enough money in it. The Mac Mini really isn’t a low-end machine; it is a headless laptop folded into a single case. The Mini seems like a flanking attack on the home entertainment market and is likely to evolve into a DVR. But, the iTunes Movie Store will make Apple more money than the Mini. Aopen recently created a knock-off of the Mac Mini but it sells for about a hundred dollars more than the Mini.
As I see it, Apple would like to own most of the top quarter of the computer market. That much of the market would make Apple the largest Computer manufacturer in the world, beating out Dell. There would be no doubt in anyone’s mind that Apple was a major contender.
Two issues would keep Apple from releasing the Mac OS into the wild. Steve Jobs likes to “control the whole widget.” It’s much simpler to support a smaller number of component parts; tight hardware/ software integration is part of what makes the Mac experience better than Windows. Next, it is possible that Apple could achieve its market goals without releasing the Mac OS, so why should it?
The nature of the computing industry will change in the next ten years. The cost of computer parts continues to decline and more functions are migrating onto the processor chip. It won’t be too long before we have, inside a single chip, good, fast, cheap complete computers. That means that the computer will fragment into individual stand-alone parts that wirelessly talk to each other. Some people say that this means that the OS becomes obsolete, but I think ease of use will become the deciding factor. Apple does ease of use better than anyone in the world.
And with a steady stream of upgrades every year to a year and a half, compared to six years for Microsoft, then Apple can quickly take advantage of this technology.
Intel has been stung by AMD’s success in the last few years and wants to reclaim market share, but AMD’s success is just an indication of a coming trend in world competition. Indian and Chinese companies will be trying to steal market share from both Intel and AMD. Their low-end machines, run with linux OS, will take over much of the low end business in the developing world.
This increased competition means that Intel must innovate, but it does not have a partner in Microsoft to “push the envelope.” It has one in Apple, though. I can imagine that Intel and Apple will collude to lower Microsoft’s ability to intimidate.
A quarter of the market, when it is the most profitable quarter, is enough to tempt both. Intel will still make cheap computer parts, but Apple will remain the Mercedes of the computing world, without costing that much more.
UrbanBard, I really think maybe you should be writing these articles, even Beeblebrox too. The only thing that I can’t stand about your posts are…......while I’m reading the article and my stomach starts to burn over the limit of knowledge some writers have, you two are reading my mind and beating me to the post. The post above I give a perfect 10 out of 10 score.
The word “pining” used in relationship with a mac user over XP ? WTF…...., either you need to look up the definition and maybe choose a different word or maybe you bumped your head. There is nothing I like about running XP as an OS. I hope I can speak for most mac users here….....the fact that I can run it to use other software not supported on the OS X platform (for the time being) is what I like. And trust me as apps start to appear my use for XP will slowly but surely diminish.
From: “Sanders, Link” <[email protected]>
Date: April 18, 2006 1:22:26 PM PDT
To: Link Sanders <[email protected]>
Subject: Emailing: os-x-for-all
The message is ready to be sent with the following file or link
attachments:
Shortcut to:
http://www.applematters.com/index.php/section/comments/os-x-for-all/
Note: To protect against computer viruses, e-mail programs may prevent
sending or receiving certain types of file attachments. Check your
e-mail security settings to determine how attachments are handled.
You are missing two major points.
1) In the computer world the ability to control both the hardware and software is what makes Apple great and unique. The whole is greater then its parts and there is no truer an example of this then Apple products - Mac computer hardware plus Mac OS X; and iPod plus iTunes software. To separate the hardware and software would but Apple in the same mess that Microsoft is in with other different Wintel computer/MP3 players manufacturers - compatibility problems and the need to support the common over the superior.
2) By Apple switching to the Intel processor Apple is for the first time directly competing with Microsoft and Dell. Apple hardware is now being directly compared to other Intel computer hardware. With Boot Camp, Window OS on Wintel computers can be direct compared to Window OS on Macintel computer. Also the comparison of Window OS and Mac OS X on the same hardware is not being over looked with the introduction of Boot Camp. So to say that “Apple cannot afford to actually compete head on with the likes of Microsoft and Dell” does not carry water.
In other words you need to rethink you the bases for your article
because you have lost sight of the reality.
<<os-x-for-all.url>>

Macster2,
pining is the appropriate word, as in a yearning to run XP. It is a common mistake to juxtapose personal feelings on the mind of the wider world but, in the case of Boot Camp, people seemed genuinely glad that they can now run XP. After all those years of hearing how bad it was, once it was an option everyone was thrilled.
The Missing Link,
your argument has merit, the ability to control the whole widget is unique to Apple. So what you’re saying is without control of the hardware OS X would be as bad as XP. Got it. I kind of think OS X is sunstantially better than XP for a lot of reasons not tied to the hardware, but that’s just me. I have played with OS X running on a Toshiba and it stilled seemed better than XP.
I can hardly see how they are directly competing with Microsoft. Microsoft will let you install XP on any PC you wishm, even a Mac.
Also when quoting the article a little context is useful:
“Thus, they will opine, Apple cannot afford to actually compete head on with the likes of Microsoft and Dell.” It wasn’t that the article implied that Apple couldn’t compete with head on with Microsoft and Dell, rather, it is the case that some Apple fans do’t believe Apple can take on Microsoft and Dell.
I remain convinced that, even in the current climate, Apple can compete with Microsoft. I maintain that they could sell enough copies of OS X to more than offset any losses in hardware sales (which I remain unconvinced would be substantial)
Therefore I conclude that the only people afraid of Apple going all out and making OS X for all are those who don’t truly believe that Apple stuff is as good as the competition. Color my glasses bondi blue, but I think Apple’s stuff, particularly OS X, is good enough to stand on its own.
Chris, I was amused to see that Mike over at “The Geek and I” totally missed your jokes.
Mr Mike is offended by your self-deprecating humor, saying: “Oh, perhaps Chris Siebold just hates anyone with their own brain and the ability to think for themselves by referencing users as moronic luddites”
Personally, I found it quite funny that you, the author of the linked article, called yourself a “moronic luddite”.
But it looks like you’re going to have to start putting those pointy-finger stickers like they use on unpaid bills(late accounts if that’s what you call them)wherever there’s a joke.
Nice article too, Chris. I think the best hope of OS X on PCs is a contract with Dell, HP or Lenovo.
Chris,
The proper definition of yearning as pining, was not the point I was trying to make. I don’t know one single mac user that yearns/pines to use Windows XP. If they had to use it, they bought a cheap PC box, ran Vitual PC, or however, such as I did. My yearning was to be able to use, (at most) three programs that are not available on the Mac OS (yet). If they were available on OS X, I wouldn’t use XP. I am forced. Here’s my out look, “wow that’s a program I can use at work” (reading systems support). Jesus Christmas trees, Windows only, I hate Windows” (more swearing, words not appropriate for most ears). “I really need this” (In the back of my mind, do I want to waste my time and money) .........
pine/pining - (verb) - intrans. - suffer a mental and physical decline, esp. because of a broken heart, or miss and long for the return of.
This definition taken off line is not the way I see any mac users feelings towards the actual OS, its the specific application they wish/yearn/dream of/hoping too/pine to run.
Those that espouse the reasons why they shouldn’t, or won’t, are tacitly saying that Apple can’t compete on either the hardware or software side.
Exactly. Let’s say OS X nows runs on generic hardware, just as XP now runs on Mac hardware. Basically, this means that Mac hardware is now on a level playing field with all other hardware, from generic PC parts to Alienware and Dell.
To argue that Apple hardware would get pummeled, destroyed, decimated on a level playing field is to say simply that it’s too expensive for what you get. And this argument, ironically, comes from the most rabid of Apple’s fans. Daringfireball’s article on the subject is rife with gymnastic leaps around this very simple fact, arguing in essence that Apple’s hardware will lose out because users will buy cheaper hardware, even though there’s no such thing.
I myself would almost certainly pick generic or lesser known brands over Mac hardware. But then again, I’d also pick such brands over Alienware. Alienware, like Apple, charges a premium for “style.” For me and my work, style doesn’t pay the bills. What I care about is that it works and that the OS runs the software I want.
But that said, Alienware is plenty profitable. There IS a market for premium hardware with style, and that’s where Apple could and would target its hardware sales, which is pretty much what it does now.
What losses they would incur in hardware sales would be from people who only buy Mac hardware because they’re forced to in order to get the OS. But how much are those users really worth and how much do they really mean to Apple?
Chris, I can’t say that I pine to run Windows XP or Vista; it’s more that being able to do so gets rid of some irritations. It is irritating how much of the Web obeys how Internet Explorer violates standard http protocols or how they put in ActiveX buttons in web pages so I can’t toggle anything. So, I can’t download AOL’s old movies or Yahoo’s computer games. Bah!
I see Boot Camp as an extension of Apple’s hardware standards. Apple doesn’t sell a stripped computer to trick people into believing that they are getting the lowest price. You get a lot of ports and functions built in with Apple, maybe some that you think that you will never use. I bought a Superdrive with my 4 year old flat screen iMac and have yet to burn a DVD with it. But, the next computer I will buy, a Intel Mac, will have a Superdrive in it. Why? Maybe one day I will use it.
It costs money to build these ports and features in, but most of them are necessary at some point in our lives. And it’s worth more to buy them up front as a package, because they cost less than if you bought each of them individually. More than that, because they are standard; you know that they work. And they are immediately available, so you don’t have to run down to the computer store to buy a card and take most of the next day configuring it and downloading drivers. It’s just there and it works every time. Convenience cost money, but, damn it, I like it.
It should be the same with software. Disk drives are getting so large now that I wouldn’t mind paying a little more and getting a triple boot system. I probably wouldn’t use Linux or windows very often, but I would like knowing that they are there. Yes, this kind of flexibility would convince some people to switch. But, the main asset to Mac users is not that saves us money, but that it saves us time. And it keeps us from getting pissed off because not everything in the world works well with a Mac.
Those that espouse the reasons why they shouldn’t, or won’t, are tacitly saying that Apple can’t compete on either the hardware or software side.
I could “espouse” reasons unrelated to hardware/software competition.
If the executives at Apple reach the conclusion that it will be in their long term economic benefit to release OS X to the wider world they certainly will.
Quite realistically probable, as I’ve said all along. And I still don’t think it’ll happen in the relatively short term that others might “espouse”. Done prematurely, I’d foresee that strategy having more risk of failure than potential for success. There’s still more groundwork necessary to tip that balance of risk more in favor of success, which is very unlikely to happen until after Apple’s Intel hardware transition is complete and probably not before the next major OS X release.
I still haven’t seen enough enough evidence that gives me confidence that Apple could successfully pull it off any sooner.
Surely that post illustrates exactly what Chris means…
To argue that Apple hardware would get pummeled, destroyed, decimated on a level playing field is to say simply that it’s too expensive for what you get. And this argument, ironically, comes from the most rabid of Apple’s fans. Daringfireball’s article on the subject is rife with gymnastic leaps around this very simple fact, arguing in essence that Apple’s hardware will lose out because users will buy cheaper hardware, even though there’s no such thing.
you raise interesting questions, mr beeblebrox, veery eenterresting.