Filed under: Software
Dear Steve, Please release OX for all x86 based machines
That is the basic thrust of this open letter to His Steveness. Mike Willis posits that hackers have made OS X run on non-Apple hardware and there is nothing that Apple can do about it, so why not just play ball and release OS X for any old x86 machine?Mike thinks that Apple is missing a valuable opportunity, in fact he guesses Apple would sell 5 million copies of OS X for x86 in the first week. Please keep in mind that over 86% of statistics are made up.
What Mike doesn't consider is the fact that if Apple were to do what Mike suggests Microsoft would take notice. They would work hard to crush Apple, something they really aren't too concerned with (at least not in the OS market). Add to that the fact that Apple would then be responsible for supporting OS X on a variety of hardware and you have a deal killer.
Sorry, Mike, but Steve won't go for it and I, for one, don't blame him.
Get a WordPress.com Blog
![TUAW [Cafepress]](http://www.blogsmithmedia.com/www.tuaw.com/media/tuaw-cafepress-promo.png)
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)
James Hare said 10:08AM on 8-23-2005
I have to agree with Mike in this case. While it might not be the best thing for Apple, the computing industry needs the shakeup that a second viable x86 operating system would offer. I use linux and have for years; however, I've come to the conclusion that linux isn't ever really going to get there where it's a viable desktop operating system for Joe and Jane Six-Pack. It's just too hard to understand at first, and the learning curve is pretty steep. It's not unusable by any means, but lord help the n00b with a problem.
And that's where Apple should come in. People with PCs right now have no choice, really as to what operating system they use. They basically are stuck with Windows-it's what's on their PC and installing anything else is SCARY. The Mac OS isn't that hard-even the developer version "just works." Pretty matters-that's what XP was about, because OS X had (and still has) a huge advantage with regards to looks. Mac OS CAN compete with Windows--it's just that having the Mac OS until now required a Macintosh. It's possible to make it so you don't need a Macintosh now.
The whole "apple is a hardware company" line doesn't really work anymore. The iPod and iTunes are Apple's lifeblood now, and licensing OSX won't hurt that.
And "microsoft will crush apple" whatever. Microsoft can't "crush" Apple. They haven't "crushed" linux, and they've been trying for years.
Real competition would force Microsoft to write decent software. Real competition on the x86 platform (if that's what desktops are all going to be) would be a boon to consumers. Not only that, but I know I wouldn't pay a cent for a copy of Mac OS X I had to hack to get to work on my computer- but I'd certainly pay for a version that just worked on it.
Reply
Sam said 10:27AM on 8-23-2005
"While it might not be the best thing for Apple" ... "The whole 'apple is a hardware company' line doesn't really work anymore. The iPod [...]" ...
1. If it's not the best decision for Apple, Apple shouldn't do it.
2. The iPod is hardware. It's a perfect example of the benefit Apple derives from making both hardware and software. If you want things to "just work", you can't release MacOS X for generic hardware.
3. The total revenue for iPods is now, what, 30-40% of Apple's revenue? The Macintosh hardware still makes up the majority.
4. Microsoft Office and WMP is available for MacOS X, and that's still the sticking point, and a HUGE selling point for a lot of people for MacOS X over linux.
5. "I wouldn't pay a cent for a copy of Mac OS X I had to hack to get to work on my computer"... good, go download linux.
Reply
Reefdog said 10:29AM on 8-23-2005
But James, in order for Apple to make it "just work," it would take the integration and support of thousands of peripherals and pieces of hardware that Apple never sees a penny for. I'm with Scott: having to support the botched installations of Mac OS X86 on Compaqs by the well-intentioned but ignorant buying public would be a financial nightmare for Apple.
They aren't hurting from this move; the true geeks will find a way to install anyway, and making it "one step easier" for them would only make things ten steps harder for Apple, at very little real benefit. If you think Dell would suddenly start selling millions of OS X86-equipped desktops, you need to read up on Microsoft's licensing terms. No hardware manufacturer will compromise their relationship with MS just to get a few Apple sales.
No, Apple keeping it under the fold is a good thing for the quality of their product, even if it does cost them a few dollars in the short run.
Reply
Matthew Williams said 10:31AM on 8-23-2005
Why even bother posting horribly written and pointless letters like this? I don't agree with anything written in the statement and I believe OSX should remain on Apple hardware only, however, if you're going to argue for the release of a "install anywhere" OSX then please write a better argument.
Reply
Eric said 10:34AM on 8-23-2005
I guess this is the next G5 laptop-- Something everybody wants that isn't anywhere near probable in this reality.
We know the code can be tweaked to run on regular x86 hardware. That doesn't seem hard, but is. It runs on ONE x86 configuration. All Apple computers run on a very limited range of configurations. To port fully to x86 in the wild, the number of configurations jumps from managable to near infinite. This is why Windows machines tend to be kinda flaky at times (XP has done a lot to combat this, but it's still there). All those drivers for the cheapest crap from China have to come from somewhere. If it's not written by Microsoft or a major vendor, the driver is usually pretty crappy. OSX becomes a nightmare of driver support.
Speaking of support; All those people buying copies of OSX will need call center support. They may not, but Apple has to be ready. That means you need a large pool of techs that can troubleshoot all those driver problems. I'll speculate that one of the reasons Apple has such good ratings on their tech support is because the techs can actually fix problems rather than pass the buck to some other vendor.
The real money is in corporate licensing. Companies pay a lot of money to keep their software up ot date on fleets of computers. They pay for support. They keep paying year after year. End user sales are a smaller part of that income to MS and are really there to help keep their monopoly going.
Have you ever seen a legit copy of WinXP? It's sort of a joke, but unless it came with the computer, probably not. At least amongst the people clammoring for Apple to put OSX out in the wild. I'm sure there are plenty of copies of OSX that are pirated too, but at least Apple got the money from the hardware sale. They know you'll be back for an upgrade in a couple years too.
Don't forget that this will be the same thing that happened when the clones were allowed to happen. It nearly killed Apple. It won't happen again. Stop asking for it.
Reply
Pedro said 10:52AM on 8-23-2005
I am with you Scott... I dont blame him at all. Keeping the OS on Apple machines is what makes the Macintosh package so appealing.
Reply
Stone Hardman said 7:38PM on 11-17-2005
Let the hackers do as they will. Frankly, I would prefer not to deal with custom-tailored drivers that may cause the stability of Mac OS X to decline. Additionally, Apple's superior hardware design is enough for me to shell out a few more bucks. Never once have I seen a pice of PC hardware even come close to the quality in usability and design that the Mac is famous for. Not once.
Reply
Jason Coleman said 11:25AM on 8-23-2005
Let me just say thanks to the people posting comments on this post so far. This is much better reading than the M$ sucks type of comments this sort of thing usually generates.
My 2:
I'm not the first poster to mention the Mac clones, but I think that we should all keep them in mind. Jobs & Co. started Apple way back in the day when you were a hardware company first and the software was an afterthought. Apple did (and continues to do) an incredible job of making that software the leader in the industry. However, this attitude toward hardware first is a core company principal that they will not let go of lightly.
Allowing clones were a step in that direction, after Microsoft did show that being an OS company could be a business in of itself. However, Apple soon learned just what Microsoft (and with worse end results, IBM) had discovered. People will flock to the cheap machines because they wanted the OS capability, no matter how awful the hardware was. Those cheap Mac knock-offs may have long since gone out of business, but Apple is the company that suffered long term.
If you need proof of how this plays out in ten years, look at IBM's PC market share. We have long since even quit calling them "IBM compatibles." There all Windows machines now, and Mircosoft can barely keep up with the myriad of hardware. Apple users simply don't need that headache. They don't want it. It's why so many "switched" in the first place.
There's no doubt in my mind that Apple could in fact sell millions of copies of OSX86, but the ensuing headache for them would far outweigh the short term gain. Apple will now be able to build and sell their own $500-700 machines if they choose (full package, not the mini) with the vast amount of x86 hardware available. They can then expand their market share in a far more comfortable manner for their Hardware (+software) business model.
Reply
Twist said 5:38PM on 8-23-2005
Not releasing OS X for non-Apple x86 machines is just fine. People are going to be running hacked copies of it anyway. A lot of them will be pirated but Apple may still see increased OS sales and they won't have to worry about supporting the millions of different hardware combinations out there in the x86 world. One of the reason the Apple experience has traditionally been better than the Windows one is because Apple controls the hardware and the software and they have a very limited range of hardware to support. A general release for x86 hardware or even just the Intel subset of x86 hardware would probably be terribly buggy.
Reply
wrecklass said 12:50PM on 8-23-2005
Oh my aching head. So many bad examples, with so many badly thought out arguments. Lets take them one at a time:
1) "Supporting all those hardware configurations would be a huge headache for Apple." Oh, what a wonderful headache to have! First of all, if Apple really sold tens of millions of copies of OS X, the cash flow alone would be worth it. Think of how many more support engineers you can employ with that much money. Second, remember that Apple doesn't have to do all of the support for those peripherals. Make the peripheral manufacturers do it. Got a problem with an ATI video card? Call ATI. The peripheral manufacturers are responsible today, so why should this be a problem in a larger marketplace?
2) "Apple is a Hardware manufacturer, and there is more money in Hardware." I call BS! If all the money is in hardware, why is Microsoft the biggest money maker out there? Apple would go through a transition, but the benefits would far outweigh the downsides.
3) "Apple tried clones before." Again I call BS. The earlier attempt by Apple to allow clone manufacturers was a trumped up deal with Apple specifying exactly how the hardware had to be built, and doling out heavy licensing fees. Forget about all that, make the hardware as generic as possible to allow the OS to run on as wide a range as you can, and the number of sales you make goes up accordingly.
4) "Microsoft will take notice and crush Apple." This should go in the "stupidest things ever said" category. First off, so what if Microsoft takes notice? Are you suggesting that every company should live in mortal fear of Microsoft every day? We need more competition, not less. Secondarily, MS has already been fount guilty of unfair business practices and monopolistic abuses. They cannot afford to crush anyone, or they'll end up with more government restrictions than the old AT&T.
Most of the arguments boil down to a lack of imagination. Microsoft is making $Billions (with a capital $) off of Operating System sales. If Apple were to double, triple or better their market share, it would be a huge win. Apple's market share is so small right now that I can envision a ten fold increase without much problem.
Apple needs to stop thinking defensively, and go after the real market it can have. It needs to stop thinking pennies and peanuts. "If you think pennies, you get pennies, if you think dollars, you get dollars," needs to be the mantra at Apple HQ.
Reply
gurutc said 12:46PM on 8-23-2005
I replied to another thread on this subject earlier today. Fact is, OSX wasn't written for the Mac, it was ported from Jobs' NextStep platform. And early on, it was a crummy port. But Jobs already made the deal with the devil when he took the investment from Bill Gates. However, Microsoft is minding its 'crush the competition' behavior in light of its dance with Dept of Justice.
- gurutc
Reply
gurutc said 2:07PM on 8-23-2005
I replied to another thread on this subject earlier today. Fact is, OSX wasn't written for the Mac, it was ported from Jobs' NextStep platform. And early on, it was a crummy port. But Jobs already made the deal with the devil when he took the investment from Bill Gates. However, Microsoft is minding its 'crush the competition' behavior in light of its dance with Dept of Justice.
- gurutc
Reply
buy-proxy said 2:44PM on 8-23-2005
#8 I feel your argument is invalid.
1) While it's true that if Apple sold millions of copies of OS X they could hire many more support engineers, the simple fact remains that TRAINED and CAPABLE support staff do not exist in such numbers, which would mean that apple would have to spend even more on training them. They would also have have to be trained and ready to provide support BEFORE OS X for PC's went on sale. While we know that Apple has the money to train these guys, I personally would prefer it of they spent it on other things like R&D so we can get some new products.
Additionally, If a customer calls up Apple Support, and says they have a problem with their setup, and receive a response like "Well, you need to find out what type of video card you have and call the manufacturer" I can guarantee you that word will spread that Apple Support sucks. There is a reason why Apple is listed as the best company support-wise, and that reason is that you don't get shunted around, the person you speak to can fix the problem, or can advise the best way forward.
2) Apple is indeed a Hardware manufacturer, and for Apple, there is definitely more money in Hardware for them. You don't give up a successful business model. OS's are pretty much the same thing when you break things down. What keep Apple ahead is the fact that their OS is more stable than Windows. And the reason it's more stable is because the Hardware environment it runs on is limited and therefore much easier to manage.
3) With the earlier attempt at clones Apple specified exactly how the hardware had to built for a very good reason. To keep the hardware base limited and manageable. This is what makes the "Macintosh" experience so great. There are very few surprises, which in turn makes every thing easy to manage.
Making the Hardware generic as you suggest will land Apple in the same trap as Microsoft. While it's true that sales will go up, Quality and Stability of the product will go down.
4) If Apple start to encroach on what Microsoft views as it's territory, I can guarantee you that they will retaliate. As you've pointed out before, Microsoft is bigger than Apple, and could keep them tied up in court for ages. It's not a question of living in fear, but choosing your fights wisely. (I would not try to step in the ring with Ali, Tyson or Lewis, because I'm wise enough to know that I'll get my ass knocked out, but I doesn't mean that if I happened to find myself in the ring by accident, that I would cower in the corner)
Microsoft does make Billions off of OS sales, this is because they sell a lot of units, it does not mean that they units are any good though. Nissan sell a hell of a lot more units than Ferrari. Ferrari could ramp up production and make more units than Nissan, but then a Ferrari wouldn't really be a Ferrari no would it?
Reply
A. said 3:08PM on 8-23-2005
Just one correction to #8. Microsoft doesn't make "$Billions" off OS Sales, they make $Billions off licensing that OS.
Reply
sampy said 3:20PM on 8-23-2005
I think people aren't getting Apple's obvious strategy: They are going to take the "third way". They can't wake the sleeping dragon (Microsoft) by directly attacking it's market share. But they will sell "Macintosh" computers by the tens of thousands -- a standard reference platform that will guarantee the performance and stability of OSX and guarantee it remains a superior experience for decades to come. So even though Apple won't be releasing OSX "into the wild" it will sell it's own branded PC's -- Apple's model WILL prevail, they will make money on both hardware and software, and with standardized components (Intel chips / motherboards, etc.) Apple will be able to compete head-to-head with Dell and offer superior value. The era of Dell is OVER -- if you see their numbers lately, they are going down like the hindenburg ... you cannot continue to grow your market by being a large parasite like Dell, at some point you have to offer VALUE -- and that's exactly what Apple is going to unleash on the market in exponential quantities. The VALUE you get from the Apple / Intel experience will be so far off the chart, it will shame the rest of the hardware and software (read: Dell and Microsoft) world and make Apple rich beyond it's wildest imagination.
Reply
RP said 9:04PM on 8-23-2005
The best thing Apple should do is what they are currently doing. By making Mac OS X run only on their systems, they can appeal users with a computer that can run both Windows and Mac OS X. Why would a user by a computer that can only run Windows? But if they allow other PCs to operate Mac OS X, then they lose the computer market since users will have freedom to choose what computer they like best. Apple can make the most money by selling the only products that are dual-boot.
Reply
Ruan Caiman said 3:28PM on 8-23-2005
Did anybody happen to see the Dvorak column on this just after the x86 announcement from Apple? It's an interesting read, with some feasible predictions.
Quick summary: Of course releasing OSX for all x86 machines is Apple's plan, and has been all along. However, they must allow the homebrewers to hack it and pretend to discourage them long enough to satisfy MS. At some point, enough users will have installed the hacked versions that Apple will be "forced" to release it, saying they had to because it was already out there in the wild.
http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,1895,1845259,00.asp
Reply