Filed under: Analysis / Opinion, Hardware
This just in: OS X running on PCs a bad idea, or: C.K.'s lost it
Who could've imagined that hell would freeze over and C.K. would lose it all in the same day? Check out his It's on! post. Did you notice his "Of course, the real key to this would be if Apple would just go ahead and release a version of OS X for PCs" line towards the end?
Granted we're still at ground zero in terms of this Boot Camp news, but I can't think of resulting a conclusion/speculation that I couldn't disagree more with. It's great that Apple's allowing all those Mac users to run Windows for an app or two that doesn't work in Mac OS X yet, but I really don't think Boot Camp signifies Apple's first step towards 'fighting the PC revolution' using anyone's hardware but their own. Aside from the 'Apple is a hardware company' business model argument, it would undermine both their business and engineering practices on a number of levels.
Apple licensing out Mac OS X to run on anyone's hardware would unleash the very stability and management nightmares that they've been trying to avoid by controlling both hardware and software. This scenario is very much like what would happen if they opened up the iTunes and iPod platform: look at Microsoft's 'Plays for Sure' attempt at helping iTunes' competitors. Napster's own CEO has publicly stated that, more or less: it sucks.
In the context of an industry where anyone and their mother can slap together parts for PCs with crazy glue and duct tape, Apple's model of controlling the hardware that their stellar software runs on has far more of a purpose than simply gouging people's bank accounts; and even the age-old whine of "but Mac/iPod hardware is more expensive" has been thoroughly discounted.
Please, readers of TUAW, I beg you: don't listen to C.K. He's clearly lost it. Let's all have a moment of silence for our fellow blogger in hopes that he can find the strength to regain his sanity.
![TUAW [Cafepress]](http://www.blogsmithmedia.com/www.tuaw.com/media/tuaw-cafepress-promo.png)
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)
Robert Labatt said 11:36AM on 4-05-2006
I checked my calendar, it's April 5th not 1st.
Reply
Phillip Platz said 11:37AM on 4-05-2006
I like the following line on their website:
"EFI and BIOS
Macs use an ultra-modern industry standard technology called EFI to handle booting. Sadly, Windows XP, and even the upcoming Vista, are stuck in the 1980s with old-fashioned BIOS. But with Boot Camp, the Mac can operate smoothly in both centuries."
Reply
Don Wilson said 11:41AM on 4-05-2006
"Apple's model of controlling the hardware that their stellar software runs on has far more of a purpose than simply gouging people's bank accounts"
Right, like when Apple charges $100 for .1 updates to the operating system.
Reply
clearlynuts said 11:58AM on 4-05-2006
At least someone on this site is thinking clearly. Thank you.
Reply
John P. said 11:59AM on 4-05-2006
> Right, like when Apple charges $100 for .1
> updates to the operating system.
True, but then again, those .1 updates are fundamental updates to the OS. They are not just re-designed improvements in the interface. I tend to think of .1 upgrades like the succession of upgrades a-la Win3.1->95->98->2000->XP (though not, obviously, in the same light).
Anyhow, most major software vendors charge for full upgrades (ie, Illustrator 7->8->9->10->etc...), but I liken 10.1->10.2-> etc... to full version upgrades, not point upgrades. I think Apple likes the '10' enough to ignore versioning conventions (ie, It's product name is OS X, as is Adobe Illustrator, it's version currently is 4, whereas Illustrator is at version 12).
TANSTAAFL
John
Reply
David Chartier said 12:03PM on 4-05-2006
#3: Perhaps paying for a major OS upgrade wouldn't be as much of a big deal if they had used full version numbers then?
Whether the retail updates are numbered 10.x or 10.x.x or 10, 11 and 12 is irrelevant; it's a simple marketing choice to use a numbering scheme of 10.x. The real issue is whether the updates from 10.2, 10.3 and 10.4 are significant enough to warrant a full retail upgrade, and according to the general criteria that both Apple and Microsoft use (a certain number of major new features), Mac OS X's updates seem to warrant their price.
Reply
Lee Erickson said 12:12PM on 4-05-2006
Hmm. Does This mean Apple is planning on upping hard drive space on thier intel machines? I mean an intel mac mini with 120 gig with OSX and Windows would probably only have like 30-40 gig left over after you install programs for both sides... just a thought.
Reply
Tom said 12:23PM on 4-05-2006
WHY THIS MAY BE DANGEROUS:
If I'm Adobe, why would I put my nose to the grindstone to put out CS 3 for OS X? Or Microsoft for the next version of Office for Mac?
Now, do power users want to switch back and forth between Photoshop for PC and their Mac environment? Of course not. But if I'm Apple, I just deintensified a whole lot of software makers from getting Universal bianaries out there. In the short term, this is pretty dumb.
Reply
AL said 12:31PM on 4-05-2006
I agree with Tom. No rush to bring out CS3 if you can use the Windows version on your Mac. If lots of companies follow suit, then its making OSX almost irrelevant - people will buy a Mac, install XP on it, and thats it. Apple will turn into Alienware or something. I say - do everything in your power to keep Windows OFF the Apple platform. Either that, or level the playing field and release OSX for PCs. Its a slippery slope otherwise
Reply
Joshua said 12:38PM on 4-05-2006
Thank you David for thinking straight. Apple's revinue stream is HARDWARE, not SOFTWARE. IE, Apple won't ship OS X for mainstream PCs so as to protect their revinue stream
Reply
Wheels said 1:09PM on 4-05-2006
I'm am so glad that I bought my "new" dual G4 Power Mac instead of a Mactel.
I am still true to Macs!
Reply
Brett said 1:11PM on 4-05-2006
#7: Great point.
As I mentioned at C.K.'s post, and despite David's mention here that "Aside from the 'Apple is a hardware company' business model argument,..."
Remember, Apple is a HARDWARE company, which is why they practically give away OS X and iLife (very inexpensive and zero copy protection). They want the experience on their hardware to be so great that you will keep buying it every 6 months. If they ever were to release OS X for the PC world, their hardware sales would take a serious dive, because most people would just buy a cheaper machine with similar or slightly better specs than pay a premium for a more stylish Mac.
OS X will never be released for anything but Macs.
Reply
C.K. Sample, III said 1:18PM on 4-05-2006
I think C.K. is correct. He's a genius. This David guy clearly doesn't know what he's talking about...
Reply
Tero said 1:48PM on 4-05-2006
Every time Apple releases a new .1 update of OS X, there are many applications that break and have to be modified and recompiled to run. I think it shows that Panther, Tiger etc. have been major updates to the operating system.
Reply
Don said 4:36PM on 4-05-2006
Tero - Or it shows that Apple isn't thinking far enough ahead. If you're breaking applications for your OS on a yearly basis, do you suppose that encourages professional software companies to develop for your OS?
Reply
Tero said 12:03PM on 4-06-2006
Don, that is certainly a problem. Apple has made a lot of progress with OS X in five years and I guess there has been a price to pay. Microsoft is pretty obsessed with backwards compatibility, and Apple... not so much :) Let's hope Apple won't have to fiddle with the fundamentals of OS X so much in the future and we will less applications break with new OS releases.
Reply