OS X Tiger on a PS3

I know this new is not new....but anyway it just occured to me. Most comments revolved around if Apple license osx to ps3 then they will loose revenue because of not selling hardware. But consider this scenario: Sony only sell ps3, then Apple sell some OSX kit wich includes a boot disc, a firewire HDD loaded with the osx and a bluetooth mouse and keyboard for lets say $300??? any taker?? I for sure would buy one!

It seems to me that the Mac Mini is nothing at all like a cash cow for Apple: it was created as a low end machine primarily to produce Apple converts and secondly to provide a cheap second or third machine for Apple fans specifically to keep them from buying stripped-down Windows machines to serve this purpose. Apple's marketing for it has always been as a Switcher machine - and Apple is NOT, as many people in this thread seem to think, "making $500" off of each mini it sells. The hardware simply isn't that profitable. I think the old "Apple is a hardware company" vs "Apple is a software company" dichotomy is out of date. Apple is a services and media company now. It provides the means to create media of various types and platforms (software: iTunes, hardware: iPod) to distribute that media. Many things point to some Apple-Sony collaboration going on under the blankets... H.264 support being huge in QuickTime AND on the PSP... The apparent pending development of an Apple Movie Store of some sort, which if delivery is in H.264 allows HD content at broadband speeds as well as lower bandwidth delivery for PSP. Apple has been buying up some interesting technology as well, pointing to its own possible development of more portable technology including bluetooth enabled portable devices, mobile gaming or at least mobile 3d... I think they're trying to ensure that your best bet for listening to music, watching movies, editing video, producing films, or making music is going to be based on an Apple-provided product. MacOS X on PS3 may not happen - but if it didn't, that's tens of millions of machines worldwide that will be running someone else's OS.

If OSX came to PS3 it wouldn't be in the form it is now. it would be some hybrid with easier navigation for a console base. i'm sure they would add/remove alot of parts of it that were unnessecary. also it is completely possible that it will do video/music editing. sony is targeting hd users. with a hd tv in front of you, you can do the same work as you can on your computer. combined with a keyboard and mouse of course. on the other side, sony is known for building hype around there products. I'm sure this is just the hype machine at work. I mean were basically advertising for them right now. either way, i'd use linux if i had the choice ;-)

If Sony is hinting at OS X and Linux, there's also a good chance they could be developing a proprietary OS. The PS3 will have to support HDMI-HDCP output since the old DVI standard can no longer be implemented. HDMI has definitely been in Sony's interests as it is a huge media vendor with SCEA and Sony Pictures. Yet giving out a game system with HDCP-HDMI output for HDTV gaming while putting an open source operating system like Linux on a single machine is kind of insane. You can't put the 'hacker's OS' on a relatively cheap Blu-Ray/computer/gaming machine and not expect piracy. You can put it on the PS2 with an HDD which would be a relatively cheap DVD/psuedo-computer/gaming machine- but due to the nature of the compatibility of the PS3 spec- it will be much more tempting to commit piracy on a PS3 than a PS2, and a PS3 with Linux than an Xbox360. This implementation of Linux would be asking for easier copyright-protection-overrides than the Xbox currently suffers (a soft-mod here, a network cable there- Linux and Evox in of their illegal game copying glory.) The PS2 made consumers realize the PS wasn't as rare a thing as they'd thought. The PS3 will make consumers realize the PS2 was an introduction into an industry larger than film, and that film-quality games have their very beautiful appeal. Yet Linux would definitely drive sales- a large portion of Windows users hear about Linux' supposed superiority and don't care, but sure wouldn't mind it if a Linux machine fell into their lap with a GUI comprabale to Windows. The PS3 part won't be too shabby either. I'd say they'll have a Linux-like full-fledged proprietary OS with a bunch of root restrictions to make it harder to override it with another OS, learning from MS' mistake on the Xbox. I can possibly see Sony eventually giving consumers ability to put Longhorn on PS3. It would have the competivite/ironic edge consumers would adore. "The MS OS can't run on Xbox360, but it sure can run on PS3." Longhorn will be super-feature-rich in terms of copyright control technologies, avail in Sony's interests. In that scenario, MS could even be forced to follow Sony in putting Longhorn on its Xbox360, but I doubt consumers would forget Sony did it first. Its pretty doubtul, but if Sony elaborated on such an idea with action I think we could expect great things in terms of revenue and support. Given Sony's history of proprietary-competiveness with other names in the mainstream, a deal with Apple seems out of the question- "Tiger OS X" popping up when you turn on your PS3 wouldn't seem 'Sony'. Apple obviously created Ipod, and Sony's been competing in portable audio forever -we still refer to portable cassette players as Walkmans- and seeing as how Apple's image is tied in with the player, I just doubt Sony wants to buckle down and identify with Apple and the lowest paid CEO on earth. Sony loves to own the standard and to define the format. A windows-like/linux-like proprietary OS seems most likely. Programming for Xbox360 vs PS3 will be about as different as it is now for the Xbox and PS2 in terms of the time it takes to do so, but the inherent difference in the Cell architecture and the Xbox360's general-oriented processing power do not allow any truly accurate comparisons in performance of one and the other at the moment. A majority of game developers have said PS3 will be "by leaps-and-bounds stronger", but this is probably a hyperbolic understanding of yet-unwielded technology. The new architecture that takes the seperated processes of AI, sound, physics, shading, etc.. actually keeps them seperated- allowing for potentially massive optimizations and niches for eye-candy gain. Sony's touted "emotion-engine" for the PS2 was really anything but, but in PS3 demos it seems to be there. PS2 was supposed to look like Toy Story. Yet although "Chris K" doesn't agree, if the PS3 is anything near "leaps and bounds" more powerful than the XBOX360 while putting out 720p resolution, I really don't doubt the existence of "Toy-Story games" in measures of visual performance down the game-developing line. Those who say Xbox360 is more powerful would be right if they considered the Cell architecture to be a bunch of DSPs and a Main, it all depends on how individual developers are able to see and unlock actual usage out of the Cell. With IBM, Toshiba backing the Cell and Nvidia backing the GP- I personally think PS3 has the advantage. But none of us will know until both systems have a few hardware boundaries pushed (creatively). Some developers see new architecture as a godsend of power and streamlining the dev-cycle while others see it as suicidal. 4~40 ghz understandings for one and 3~9 ghz understandings for the other don't really mean anything and won't really mean anything until developer(s) buckle down and take as much advantage of it as possible.Even with the Cell adding up its components processing power

Read this article, that was posted on June 9.The actual designer of PS3 is the one who made these statements.Read the 5th paragraph..... http://ps3.ign.com/articles/624/624046p1.html

well remember guys we still dont know why there was a sony exec on stage with stevie.... if apple is getting concerned over microsoft finally making a succesful attack on the living room with a machine as capable as the 360 and iptv boxes, then it could start to make some sense. Sony has also had about zero luck with it's Connect music service and itunes could soon be a media download service with movies and music. apple would need some kind of living room hardware to make itunes movie downloads a reality, without ps3, tivo is kinda a step ahead there, and a video download service seems pretty close from them. i never really thought a video ipod made much sense as i would imagine apple would be more likely develop some kinda box that stays hooked up to the tv....hooking up an ipod type device to the tv just doesnt seem like something people would do naturally, much less watch anything on a small screen, both possibilities just seem gimmicky and very un-apple like. with all of that being said, i really hope they have the os for ps3 pinned down at this point since they should be fine-tuning it by now. it seems funny that they would just now be debating a minor detail like the freakin OPERATING SYSTEM this late in the game.

They're just regurgitating information from an interview Ken Kutaragi did with Impress PC Watch. During that interview, he made some outlandish claims, and said it would be *possible* to run Windows or Tiger on the Cell processor, *if the developers wanted it to*. The Sony article took that possibility and spun it to make it look like they're considering using Tiger as the PS3 OS.

geez, if only this turned out to be true. i'm imagiming my ps3 (and if ps3 why not psp?), g5 imac, powerbook and ipod all working together through os x. mmmm... compatibility... it almost doesn't bear thinking about.

wont happen.. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apple_Pippin

leojsoap - The Cell processor is not powerful enough to match a PowerMac on general applications. Microsoft and Apple both have stated that. It will be a fantastically powerful graphics system, but do you seriously think PhotoShop or RenderMan is going to run on it?