pseudorandom

Microsoft's issues with being able to deliver an OS in a timely fashion has more to do with Microsoft's size than the PC's they plan to run the OS on.

OS-X could ship today and run on every pc built in the past 3 years. Sure, it might not regognize that odd TV card or some weird weather sensing package, but neither does Windows out of the box. Windows depends on the hardware makers to provide drivers for odd cards. This is one area where OS-X would have issues.

The other area where OS-X would have issues is in the world of 3D graphics for games, an area they don't compete in anyway.

When it comes to running Photoshop, Word, Excel and the host of other standard applications, OS-X would run out of the box.

Why?

Because Linux does. Linux even runs on older hardware. With the PC's now being down to two basic video chip sets (nVidia and ATI), its much easier today to come up with an OS that knows how to talk to the hardware. Now in 1985, this would not be the case, there were dozens of video cards, dozens of modems, dozens of network adapters.

So OS-X on standard off the shell PC's is a very real possiblity.

"Apple would then be dependent on a pure-play operating system business."

Well, of course they have a few side projects (iPod?), and being an OS business would make them kinda like... Microsoft? We all know Microsoft isn't a profitable company as a purely OS business.

"Apple would have effectively killed their hardware business with no offsetting software business waiting for them on the other side."

Then again, there is the whole iPod deal. They have something to fall back on. Granted, it may not be too much, but with the number of iPods sold each day, I can think of thousands of companies that would do anything to be completely reliant on that.

"Steve Jobs is famous for being obsessive about even the most seemingly trivial aspects of design."

Give him a nice big Newegg gift card and have him write drivers for a few months. When Windows started crashing because of drivers, did they pull everything from the market and back down? No. They fixed the issues and moved on. Enough people (like myself) would buy OS X when it came out to make it well worth your while, and then you could work on doing support. I would buy OS X for the same reason I'd buy Vista or any other OS that comes out, so I can be up to date and efficient.

"I think Jobs would rather have dental surgery without benefit of anaesthesia than see his beautiful software running on clunky PC hardware."

I'm going to make this argument two ways, one very civil and one very offended.
Civil: So what you're saying is, Jobs would rather have a beautiful operating system running on a "beautiful" Mac than on a PC?
Offended: I built this thing with my bare hands, I fine-tuned every component to just the way I wanted it, I work on this thing, It's beautiful to me. If you don't think the same way I do, then get your head out from under the covers and come out into the real world where people work to troubleshoot problems and don't just sit and wait for Stevie to release some new hardware. You may not think the product of my blood sweat and tears is nice looking, but I sure as hell do. I'm sure Steve Jobs wouldn't care if I gave him money for an OS if it was running on a nice iBook or a beat up Gateway or something I put together with parts from Newegg. Buy a Ferrari, Steve, but you aren't going to insult my hard work.

Basically, listen to this: I'll buy an OS for $99, but I'm not paying two grand for a MacBook. The most you're going to get out of me is that $99. I'm not alone, either.

Even if MacOS could work on all pcs out the box, it would end up with far more issues that the above comment suggests. Linux does not run all PC hardware out the box. In fact I would say it runs a tiny fraction of it. It just happens the it runs on the faction of hardware popular with the people who use it. But that is not unexpected when they are the very same users that write the drivers.

MacOS will almost certianly not run aon PCs though for the sake of iSteve Job's ego. He also might be completely right. But buying a beige box with MacOS on would not be the apple experience.

For example, Front-Row one of Apples latest toys couldn't possibly work how it is meant to without an IR port on the machine. They won't even ship it to a mac without an IR port.

Here's the tiny issue with this piece: Windows is a nightmare of drivers because that's the way it's designed. The insistence on maintaining legacy support is mostly to blame, not only for the stability and compatibility issues, but also for the security issues. To a lesser degree, it is also to blame for the usability issues.

The better comparison is BSD or Linux... because OS X is pretty much just FreeBSD polished for use in the real world (i.e. not just for geeks). These operating systems have almost as much driver support, with few of the security and stability problems that Windows carries. Furthermore, the only real reason that Linux/BSD driver support is behind, is that there hasn't been a single company with the weight of Apple to demand it from the manufacturers. With Apple's heft addressing those issues, I could see a much more competitive generic OS X than you describe.

Also, Apple just joined BAPCo, the Wintel benchmarking standard committee. I believe their reasoning here is to prove, on a level playing field, that they make superior hardware.

I believe that Apple wants to have its cake and eat it too. I also believe that it's possible (if not probable) that Apple could pull it off.

Rob, first, to say that "OS-X could ship today and run on every pc built in the past 3 years" means you're either a) underestimating the broadness and complexity of the PC hardware business, or b) overestimating the configurations that Apple currently supports. Apple ships and offers support for very, very few hardware configurations. How many, say, motherboard designs has Apple shipped in the last three years compared to motherboard designs in the PC market? I'm guessing the ratio of PC:Mac motherboard designs is 100:1. But that's just a guess. And there are many, many more examples.

Let's say you're right and that OS X on third-party PC hardware could do a credible job of running Photoshop, Word, and Excel. So what? Windows already does a credible job of running those applications.

As for Linux, forgive my bias, but as a matter of course, I distrust any reference to Linux on the desktop as an example of compatibility or ease of use.

Apple's current position as an alternative desktop OS is based in large part on the perception that it is far easier to use and maintain than Windows. For a shrink-wrapped aftermarket version of OS X for Intel to be anything other than an unmitigated disaster, it would have to be, again, easier to use and maintain than Windows. Otherwise, Apple would be destroying its own claim to superiority.

I'm an Apple owner and fan, but the thought that they could out-Microsoft Microsoft strikes me as impossible. And to think that Apple would ever take on Microsoft in its own backyard, where it's strongest, and where it would leave no earth unscorched to maintain its position, is just silly.

You are right on. Cringely is
writing this to get attention,
not because there is any IQ
behind his arguments.

You missed the point of the cringeley article entirely. I am no cringeley fanboy, but his prediction is not much of a prediction - there is no doubt apple will sell their OS to people using standard PC hardware.

You are using old arguments for why apple software is superior. Look at the hardware apple is using, it is not any different than what Dell is using. It isn't much different than what Shuttle is using in their XPC barebones for that matter. The difference is the OS.

The idea of a bootcamp like product for non-mac intel hardware is probably just what apple will create. It will allow you to install the off-the-shelf OSX on a 32bit windows machine. That is all it would do.

Apple has around 2% of the worldwide PC market. They ship around 1 million PCs a quarter. Compare that to Dell who ships 10 million a quarter. They also have nearly 20% of the worldwide PC market. HP is not far behind, then Lenovo. Last year there were 218 million PCs shipped, most with some flavor of windows. Just think if Apple gets just 1% of the total worldwide PC shipments to buy OSX. Do the math.

OSX for commodity PC hardware could be the biggest product apple has ever sold.

-ec

Jon, if you hand-built your own PC, way to go! You're obviously a capable guy. You're also not in any way, shape, or form a member of Apple's target market.

You wrote, "I'm sure Steve Jobs wouldn't care if I gave him money for an OS if it was running on a nice iBook or a beat up Gateway or something I put together with parts from Newegg." In fact, I'm reasonably sure he would care. Again, it's about the entire experience. When people see OS X running, they see it on elegant Apple hardware, with an extremely high level of operating system-hardware integration -- every function of one supported by the other. That's what makes OS X so attractive, and that's what Apple would lose. So I think Steve would forgo your $99 for the larger picture.

Comment for each comment :
1) If OS X on a PC would support only what Linux does, it would fail. Linux isn't used by enough 'joe normal users' to get all the problems a consumer OS would run into. Linux users by their nature are narrowing down their hardware and their expectation of what the OS does for them. Windows users are a much wide range of users It would be an absolute nightmare of customer support of Apple to run on generic PCs.
2) Apple is in the business of selling prestige items at a mark up. There is nothing wrong with that. That's the business model, as it is for luxury cars, fashion items, furniture, etc. It's not about selling as many as you can at any price.

Running a business is about balancing investment and profit, not necessarily about giving away your stuff to as many users as you can.

Your arguement that Apple makes more on computers is spot on. BUT, do you think Steve would rather make $500 per computer on 10% of the computers sold (and that's being nice) worldwide, or make $99 per computer on 50% of the computers sold worldwide. I'll take your bet, and say the latter.
The one thing I kept waiting for in your arguement was "it won't work" for this technical reason. You gave none. If it CAN work, Steve will make it, and sell it.
Will the end customer blame Apple for problems? I have never in 10 years of computer service heard someone say "Damn, Microsoft." An Apple-naut friend of mine swears that Steve will never sell OS X for x86 because Apple doesn't want to support it. May I point out that Microsoft doesn't support Windows. HELLLLLOOOOOO!
When I install Windows on a new box, the accompanying book says if there's any problems to contact the machine manufacturer, not Microsoft. And guess how many calls I've had regarding software issues (ok, not counting viruses, spyware, etc.)? None.
Same thing with drivers...not Microsoft's problem. It's up to the device manufacturer to make it work. And if it doesn't we won't put it in a computer.
Steve believes in "the American Way." Part of that is choice. And when it comes to OS, we don't have it. Steve will give us that choice.

Apple's biggest obstacle to wider acceptance has been its insistence on proprietary hardware: no I.T. manager is going to deploy a single-manufacturer hardware platform on the corporate desktop. That in turn dissuades many software manufacturers from adapting their products to run on the self-capping market for OS-X hardware platforms.

For software manufacturers, the issue is not now and has never been the superiority of Apple's hardware or software: it's been about revenue generating volume.

By moving away from its closed hardware platform, Apple may finally be taking the essential first step towards wider use of its software.

"I have never in 10 years of computer service heard someone say 'Damn, Microsoft.'"

You must be living in some alternative universe. Those of us here on earth hear it every day.

Apple is known well enough by the public, at this stage (i-pod, etc...) that they could easily yank 30% to 50% of the new PC OS market right out from under Microsoft. The BSD-like Unix base from which they built, as well as the standing knowledge out there in the community on driver standards for existing devices, will allow a 99% driver compatibility rate (if they have already been doing their homeeowrk.)

If they release before Christmas, especially with some OEM support, they stand to turn the OS market on its ear!

"I have never in 10 years of computer service heard someone say 'Damn, Microsoft.'"

I don't think I've ever used a single Microsoft product that hasn't made me say something like that. Probably about once a week, on average. Where did you find these amazingly forgiving users?

"When people see OS X running, they see it on elegant Apple hardware, with an extremely high level of operating system-hardware integration -- every function of one supported by the other."

Maybe this would make sense if Apple "MacIntels" were built around some central proprietary hardware. But they're not -- especially now. Standard Intel x86 CPU, Intel-derived motherboard, ATI video card, industry standard memory, storage, buses, etc. -- at the end of the day, a MacIntel *is* a PC. It's simply a standardized PC. There's no magic pixie dust. OSX is no more uniquely 'coupled' to the hardware than OS with appropriate drivers. OSX provides the exact same "experience" on a DIY PC so long as its components fall within the narrow range of hardware for which OSX includes drivers. Whether OSX would retain its stability with a wider range of drivers for a wider range of hardware is an open question, but not the point. The point is that a MacIntel is simply a standardized PC. There's nothing more to the "experience", besides aesthetics.

It would do OS X good to allow 3rd party hardware drivers in, be able to run on just about any 32- or 64-bit PC, and to allow anyone to use great hardware (i.e., not Apple) with great OS software (OS X).

I'd shell out 400 bucks for such a version of OS X to run on any of my PCs before I got another piece of Apple hardware.

I think you got it absolutly right.

OS X is stable because of the control of hardware, not because of some voodoo magic. So OS X on your average custom-build "cheap Walmart PC" would lead to the same havoc than windows usually does.

I also estimate that 90% of windows instability exists because of badly written and uncertified drivers from Taiwan and other "cheap-made hardware sellers".

I agree. I hear people blaming Microsoft everyday. And Microsoft does support their products. It's called "Microsoft Support" and they have thousands of people working at call centers around the world providing support. Are you sure you are in computer service?

I want to say Apple will never release OS X for crappy PC hardware.

I want to say they'll never find a way to make OS X on the PC profitable, and that they'll never be able to pirate-proof it.

But then, once upon a time, Apple moving to Intel chips was unthinkable, too.

Well, we've been saying "Mac on Intel!? Never! It has different endian, it would make Macs PCs, etc."

A lot of folks say they hope to never see OS X "for crappy PC hardware".

What about OS X for really good PC hardware?

This idea that "PC hardware" is a singularity and by definition "crappy" is BS. Indeed, there are *lots* of crappy PC components -- crappy soundcards, crappy motherboards, crappy cases...

But don't forget -- there is some really good PC hardware, too. Really good motherboards. Really good soundcards. Really good cases.

What if...and don't let this blow your mind too far out the back of your heads...OS X on *really good* PC hardware was *better than a Mac*!?!?

Once again, a MacIntel is one configuration of a PC. That's all it is. It is a relatively good PC. I agree. Better than many cheapo PC's. But a MacIntel is not the best possible PC. There are better processors, better motherboards, and so on. How great would OS X be on these? I for one would love to see that.

As many a Mac fan, I like the idea of going down to CompUSA or CircuitCity and picking up a copy of OS X that can be installed anywhere, but I agree with you that it would be a foolish idea for Apple and provide no real sales or marketing benefit.

We are left with the issue of adoption of Macs by the many PC users out there (most of whom have never really used a Mac). The iPod has gone a long way in the promotion the Apple brand and way of making products (quality, attention to detail, keeping the user first, etc.). So, you're able to get somebody's who interested in Apple but unwilling to take thre risk of going OS X. How do you get them to take the plunge?

I think virtualization is an O.K. option and I've used VMware quite a bit and have also been poking around with Parallels Workstation beta for OS X, but I don't believe that is a good option for average users. The best way to reduce the risk of "going Mac" almost to 0 is a polished version of WINE for OS X. There are rumors that that is exactly what Apple is doing for Leopard (OS X 10.5 due early next year). WINE would work just as the Classic environment works for OS 9 on PowerPC Macs. Now, one can simply run the apps they have commited their data to (with no conversion options) or cannot find a suitable OS X version (i.e. many vertial market apps) along side all the premium OS X apps that enamor us with the platform.

"As for Linux, forgive my bias, but as a matter of course, I distrust any reference to Linux on the desktop as an example of compatibility or ease of use"

Remind me to send you an Ubuntu CD for easter.

Why do PowerBooks still only have one mouse button? If Apple would just make a laptop with two mouse buttons there would be much less of an incentive to go buy a Sony.

Now, if i have to buy a Sony to get something as basic as two mouse buttons, it sure would be great to be able to run Mac OS on it.

Interesting article - but you have missed a fundamental problem - Windows is invariably a much less frustrating GUI (Note GUI!) than OS X which is in most ways very poorly designed. The only reason for the popularity of Mac OS X has nothing to do with the Mac GUI but much more to do with the underlying OS being a BSD based Unix OS.

The only reason for a corporation to exist it to make profit. Many people already use dual boot (windows/Linux) computers, some for business and some just for fun. I would buy osX for my computer and run a tri boot system just because I could and so would many other computer users.

One percent of the pc market would be huge profit and Steve will look at the bottom line. The face of the computer industry is changing fast and Mac is changing with it. Let’s face it the Mac os is dead (the original) osX is open source software with a Mac GUI, and the new Mac's had to move to Intel hardware as not to fall behind in performance.

The proprietary Mac will always be around but not everyone needs a dual proc system or wants to be locked into a slow system that can’t be repaired with off the shelf parts.

Mac selling osX to the masses is a reality and if Steve does not sell it some one will hack it and spread it on Bit Torrent, then Steve will loose out completely. Steve will give the people what they want to foster the Corporation the almighty dollar is the only reason Mac’s exist.

I'll buy an OS for $99, but I'm not paying two grand for a MacBook. The most you're going to get out of me is that $99. I'm not alone, either.

Pricing is always the primary concern with Generic PC purchasers, but I don't believe it is as much with Apple's customers. They are after a complete, well thought out experience and will pay a few bucks extra for it.

Look at the iPod as a perfect example. There are plenty of cheaper alternatives, but they've failed because the total experience generally sucks.

While it is certainly possible, I don't think it is likely Apple will ever offer the OS to generic PC users.

Some things to remember:

Apple likely wouldn't sell their OS for $99 (seems pretty undervalued when Windows XP Pro goes for around $200 retail). But even at the $99 price point, there are issues.

Most PC users don't buy their OS retail. It comes as part of new hardware they purchase.

Most PC users are often times cost conscious. Getting them to dish out another $99 for an OS isn't a walk in the park. And then Apple would need to charge them for iLife as well.

Even if Apple did provide an OS, it wouldn't likely change the IT situation beyond anything that the new Boot Camp scenario currently does. IT departments are big on uniformity, not as big on price. (If anything, Apple's more uniform platforms may prove easier to manage from an IT perspective -- even if it was just to run Windows software).

OEM OS licenses don't generate $99 per machine. More like $25-$30.

There doesn't seem to be a great understanding of the software and hardware businesses (both at the consumer and business levels). There are a lot of assumptions being made that just aren't accurate.

"When people see OS X running, they see it on elegant Apple hardware, with an extremely high level of operating system-hardware integration -- every function of one supported by the other. That's what makes OS X so attractive, and that's what Apple would lose"

So the public idea of the Apple OSX experience would be diluted? Good point. So stop the public from completely associating OSX on COTS hardware with OSX on mac hardware. Call the COTS hardware version OSX-lite. Ship it with stripped down versions of the apps that come with Mac OSX. Make it clear that there will be less support from apple than for Mac OSX users. Change the default wallpaper and the boxes that it comes in - give them a similar yet obvious different (and hell, maybe just a tiny little bit tackier) look. Make it clear to the world that while you can get most of the OSX experience on COTS hardware, there is nothing shinier, flashier and smoother than running OSX on an Intel Mac. Let people who always thought macs looked nice, and liked using them when they had a chance to play with one at a friends place/work/school or university, but had never seriously considered buying one due to the price tag. And if you're feeling really smart, use the cash gained from selling cheap, product-differentiated COTS OSX to offset price cuts in the mac line so the price tag is that little bit less unpalatable when joe sixpack decides that maybe he'll take one more look at the mac store and let himself dream about being able to afford the full mac osx experience.

Makes sense to me.....but then I'm not a businessman :)

What if Apple's margin on their actual computers is not that high?

What if Apple has been taking steps toward running their OS on a PC for a little while now in order to break into the OS market?

What if it's their goal to get out of the computer hardware market and stick with everything else they do?

No rumors of proof on this one. Just a thought from someone who used to sell them.

Oh and for the guy who said "I have never in 10 years of computer service heard someone say 'Damn, Microsoft.'".... that's why I switched to a Mac. I was saying "Damn Microsoft" a little too often. My Mac just works.

It is hard to predict what Apple will do - except that whatever it is, it will usually be compelling and elegant.

I could see Apple hatching a deal with say, Dell to ship MacOS X on some large percent of their PCs by default (perhaps 50%?). I don't think it would kill Apple's hardware business. Apple still makes the nicest looking and some of the best designed computers out there regardless of what OS you are running.

Hi, let me start first in stating I am a Microsoft fan. I do like a lot of things that Apple does, but have never owned one.

There where a lot of comments stating that Mac will get 99$ from OS! Really? There’s no manufacturing costs? No support cots? Just burn DVD and latter all that money?

What about the cool? I am MS fan – but APPLE IS COOL. I have never had any problems with any Apple machine. I’ve never really used one, but who cares – the point is made – Apple is cool. Now let’s replace Apple hardware with ugly PC case, and monitor. Less cool. But cheaper! But now regular Mac looks just expensive… and less cool – with all the hardware problems and system locking-up, not working and all. Now it looks just like Linux with make-up. And no-one wants that thing – not even for free!

Ok, now what about Windows? People seam to think that if you just give them a choice everyone will switch from it. And most people agree. Even me. But here’s a point – there is no alternative to Windows:
- Linux is free – it does have a lot of hardware support, it has alternative applications (you can even get Win apps and games running), and it is free. Did I mention that it is free and it can do everything Windoze can and better? Did I mention that people are getting Linux CD’s in the mail like AOL disks a decade ago? Linux is the proof that you can’t replace Windows not even if you offer it for free! Not even if you have armies of enthusiasts twisting people hands to install it for them and offering even support for free. Not even with live CD’s and pre-loaded configurations.
Windows stays.

But here’s an idea (which will not happen):
- Apple creating OS X version with “Windows engine”! –
- It’s about choice – you can get OS X with Unix or Windows “engine”. But it is still 100% Mac!
- With Windows OS X – you get ALL APPLICATIONS – best from both worlds!
- It’s not about Wintel or Mac anymore – it’s about getting less or getting MORE!
- No more driver & hardware problems! Your Mac can now use ANY HARDWARE! You’ll never hear again “unsupported”.

- Microsoft would not mind – why would they? They sell OS in all forms and versions (see embedded XP)
- Apple fans would have OS X with Unix if they want or OS X which can run all games, all applications… Some might boo at first
- Apple might mind (see cool factor) but it could limit Win OS X on Apple hardware only.

At the end – Apple had a choice – support Windows on Macs or allow OS X on generic PC. Did you notice that the first requires coding and the second does not? Did you notice they’ve made a choice?

The Cringely comments I have read in the past have all sounded plausible in a superficial way, and been wrong. (I haven't read him consistently, so I don't know his hit ratio.) Some have revealed serious ignorance, some merely suffered from a lack of deeper analysis and understanding. I think the bottom line is to consider Cringely's goal-- to come up with an entertaining column by his deadline. If he sells papers/increases page hits, he's successful by his most imortant measure.

I long ago stopped taking him seriously. He does that well enough for make up for all of us.

There are really two separate questions to this:

(1) Is is technically feasible? Yes, but it would be terribly expensive in both development & support costs to get OSX to run on all the same PCs that MS-Windows does. But that doesn't keep Apple from minimizing the hardware it supports to only the most recent hardware from a limited number of vendors.

(2) Does is make financial sense for Apple to do it? Apple makes about $60 profit from every Mac sold (5 million annually, see their latest SEC filing), but could make $90 from every copy of OSX sold (70% of 200 million annual worldwide), then Apple would make $12B/year profit instead of its current $2B/year. Even if MS still kept 50% of the OS market, Apple would still make $6B instead of $2B. Seems straightforward to me!

I think the thing that many people like Cringely forget is that Apple is not a hardware business or a software business... it's a hardware-software marriage business.

The Apple Experience is derived from the complete merging of these two Apple products. It's why the iPod only works with iTunes... it's guaranteed to work the way that Apple wants it to. Mac OS X works with Mac hardware because it's guaranteed to work the way that Apple wants it to. Final Cut Pro, Garageband, and Front Row work in the same way: Apple has control because it can guarantee to give the performance and experience that it wants.

In the 90's when Apple (pre-Jobs 2.0) licensed their OS out to other hardware makers, it was a business disaster. Their hardware business took a nosedive, and the cut in $$ resulted in lower development resources for apps and OS. It was the first thing that Jobs cut when he returned.

Also: Look at MS. They make money on three things, and three things only: Windows business licenses, Office business licenses, and keyboard/mouse hardware (believe it or not!) The X-Box and X-Box 360 only LOSE money for them... along the range of $200 for each X-Box sold! And Flight Simulator isn't raking in the dough, either! MS is a one-trick pony with a dubious business model, regardless of how much $$ they make because it's only made on narrow ventures. The three aforementioned products subsidize their entire other product line. Apple doesn't play that way. If they don't make money on it (like most businesses), they don't do it. It's why more and more applications are being included in the iLife suite: It's not worth selling on its own (and wouldn't make money), so they bundle all these mini-apps together as a suite.

The closest comparisons that Apple's business model come to are luxury cars, but I don't think it's even that way. I compare Apple more to a rock concert: The performer has a certain image to uphold, and concert gives new material with all the corresponding material on stage, in publication, etc.... People don't want to see Aerosmith in Wayne Newton clothes, it doesn't fit!

Apple software on beige box PC hardware won't happen because Apple would lose control over the experience: If they can't guarantee this "Apple Experience" for the customer, then they'd rather take the hit on $$, and do it their way.

After all... when Apple currently has $9 billion in the bank (comparable to Dell's $10 billion), I don't think that Apple's doing that bad on their own. Marketshare is only part of the equation. Experience is all of it, as far as Apple is concerned.

Based on what you have written here I can safely conclude that you are totally ignorant of how operating systems work, OS design, driver coding etc.

You are ignorant of the history of OSX, the history of OSes, the history of Mach, the history of BSD. Please go and educate yourself before you spout off this utter bullshit as if you actually knew something.

"Could Apple solve this problem by only offering OS X pre-bundled with certain Intel-based PCs? Yes, they could: doing so would limit the scope of the work required. But why would they do this? Users can already buy an Intel-based PC with OS X pre-bundled. It's called a Mac.

Yeah, but not everyone can afford Macs. They're expensive machines. So I think that being the more affordable machine, it is the reason they would buy the prebundled PC's.

Why would Apple sell OS/X for a "bog-standard" PC? Because of thier partnership with Microsoft.

Microsoft is not making any headway in derailing Linux on a PC, so their thinking might be to simply dilute Linux's penetration into the PC market.

Apple has certainly been at least a little friendly to MS, is a "real" business, does not deal with the dreaded GPL, is not a bunch of "neck beard Unix geeks". So, the enemy of my enemy is my friend.

JMHO. YMMV. -- I could be wrong.

I work for Apple.

Don't make that bet, Frank.

You will regret it before the year is over.

Michael Dell said he wants to sell OS X.
I imagine other OEMS do too.

IMO OEMs are tired of MS Windows problems.

I see Apple doing a licensing deal for their technology for PCs meeting Apple's spec requirements.

Ulric, you got it exactly right when you wrote:

Apple is in the business of selling prestige items at a mark up. There is nothing wrong with that. That's the business model, as it is for luxury cars, fashion items, furniture, etc. It's not about selling as many as you can at any price.

There is one more thing that Cringley didn't mention. And that's the intel angle. I beleive strongly that Intel is not happy at the rate which Microsoft is churning out new OSes, and would play a strong part in enticing Apple to offer OS X on non-Macs. They also don't think Windows is offering enough incentive for people to buy new machines, and hence new chips. If there is one company who's to profit from OS X on PCs that would be Intel.

And on another front, I also find Apple inviting Microsoft over to thier Intel-Macs very intriguing. Why would they do this? They are trying to create a space where it would become normal for an Intel machine to run two distinctly seperate operating systems. They don't want Mac fans (fanatics?) to find the concept of a computer running Windows and OS X revolting. It's a step done to make sure that Apple won't be seens as "uncool" when OS X does eventually run on vanila intels. So, I am with Cringley on this.

beagle, you wrote:

Standard Intel x86 CPU, Intel-derived motherboard, ATI video card, industry standard memory, storage, buses, etc. -- at the end of the day, a MacIntel *is* a PC. It's simply a standardized PC. There's no magic pixie dust. OSX is no more uniquely 'coupled' to the hardware than OS with appropriate drivers. OSX provides the exact same "experience" on a DIY PC so long as its components fall within the narrow range of hardware for which OSX includes drivers. Whether OSX would retain its stability with a wider range of drivers for a wider range of hardware is an open question, but not the point. The point is that a MacIntel is simply a standardized PC. There's nothing more to the "experience", besides aesthetics.

Because Apple exercises complete control of both hardware and software for their platform, they're able to ensure a far more pleasant experience. Generally speaking, I believe that distributed solutions win, and it's true that the distributed Windows hardware market is over an order larger than the Mac market. There are vastly more choices when it comes to PCs and their components. And yet I still prefer using the Mac -- because Apple focuses on the important things and solves problems elegantly.

kL, you wrote:

Well, we've been saying "Mac on Intel!? Never! It has different endian, it would make Macs PCs, etc."

I think what most people are forgetting or simply don't understand is that Apple is first and foremost a hardware company. they write software to support their hardware lines. iTunes was written to sell iPods (thus being cross-platform).

MacOSX, iLife, Final Cut Studio and iWork are all written primarily to sell Macs. Otherwise you would see cross-platform versions to maximize software profits.

And let me remind you that Apple has already been down the OEM path with PowerPC Mac clones. It nearly put them under, until they brought Steve back. And guess what the first thing he did was. Kill the clone market.

Now many people decry "But Apple switched to Intel and doesn't use proprietary hardware anymore!" True, but for many years Apple has had builds of there OS that ran on Intel. It was their secret life-line in case the PPC platform couldn't or wouldn't keep up in the desktop processor market. And that's just what happened.

Now, as for Apple releasing Boot Camp. Makes sense to me. Eliminate another reason for people to migrate to Apple hardware. Let them run their WinXP, but also experience the MacOS, and see what OS they are really using after 6 months. It's a formula for success.

It's not a question of whether Apple could release Vanilla MacOS X Intel, they just choose not to.

Windows is invariably a much less frustrating GUI (Note GUI!) than OS X which is in most ways very poorly designed. The only reason for the popularity of Mac OS X has nothing to do with the Mac GUI but much more to do with the underlying OS being a BSD based Unix OS.

....Please Everyone knows "frustration" relative, Macs have been consistently hailed as the best example of successful user interface principles. Perfect? No. But that doesn't mean it isn't pretty good.

A key thing to understand is that the business rules that apply to Microsoft don't apply to anyone else because MS is still a monopoly. In other words saying that MS makes a massive profit without having to sell hardware is irrelevant, because MS effectively control the hardware market.

This applies in 2006 as much (and even more) than in 1995 when Windows '95 appeared, and that's the right place to look when comparing OS X on a standard PC with Windows XP/Vista.

That's because in 1995 MS finally launched their first 32-bit (ish) operating system, seriously late and over 2 years after IBM (the guys who invented the PC) released the arguably superior and (undoubtably) far more stable Windows 3.1 compatible, but 32-bit OS/2 2.0 (/3.0 / Warp).

Since PCs had been 32-bit for about 7 years you'd think that people would have flocked to buy OS/2, but they didn't, instead Windows '95 marginalised it to the point of oblivion.

Nothing has changed since then. In fact, MS is even more dominant now. So, all the hypothetical estimates of how many copies of OS/2 (sorry, OS X) Apple could sell are totally misplaced - it doesn't matter how good or how cheap it is, only the (small minority of) people willing to actively challenge MS would buy it and those are the same people (like me) who would buy Apple hardware too.

I should emphasize this further: I think the vast majority of people would sooner put up with totally infested, under-specced PC's grinding away and rebooting every hour or so than move away from MS, because 100% MS compatibility (in terms of looks, behaviour and function) is more important than anything else :-)

Great discussion!
In fact, it will be a huge effort for Apple to move OSX to the real PC world!
If you have questions just download "Darwin" http://developer.apple.com/opensource/index.html
and try in on your PC... I hope you will get all answers.
The second aspect will be the ability of Apple to protect own renommé of "software company" in the "free PC world" and sacrifice all advantages of Apple HW. Indeed, Apple can do it as the linux community does and question only is "Do we have any development masses around or inside Apple?"

Michael, you wrote:

The best way to reduce the risk of "going Mac" almost to 0 is a polished version of WINE for OS X. There are rumors that that is exactly what Apple is doing for Leopard (OS X 10.5 due early next year). WINE would work just as the Classic environment works for OS 9 on PowerPC Macs. Now, one can simply run the apps they have commited their data to (with no conversion options) or cannot find a suitable OS X version (i.e. many vertial market apps) along side all the premium OS X apps that enamor us with the platform.

I don't know much about WINE. Let's imagine for a moment that it's mostly there, workable, but still clunky. Were Apple to devote resources to finish, polish, and maintain it, including tuning it for their hardware-software platform, this could give them exactly what they need.

Speaking personally, what I want from Apple is a MacBook Pro with a built-in two-button mouse, and I want the ability to switch quickly between OS X and Windows -- I don't need them both running simultaneously, but I do need to be able to switch faster than going through a reboot.

Of course, this all depends on WINE being somewhere in the ballpark. And Apple would have to feel that they could do this without negatively impacting the OS X software market. They apparently went through that mental exercise for Boot Camp and decided it was okay. WINE might or might not be a different matter.

dan, consider yourself reminded to send me an Ubuntu CD for Easter. :-)

Beagle is right: this "all or nothing" talk about running OS X on any random, crappy old PC is missing the point.

What if Apple rolled out a "compatible with MacOS X" certification program, and OS X supported only certified hardware? You could order, say, a *new* Dell or HP with OS X pre-installed. Apple would make $50-ish a pop, and the PC manufacturer would deal with customer support. Unbundle the OS from the machine, and let the consumer choose OS X, Windows, or both! Heck, throw in OS X as a 30-day trial with every machine whose buyer chose Windows.

Apple *might* make a profit of $500 on each high-end machine they sell, but I'd guess that their *average* margin per machine is about $200 at best. Check out Apple's prices -- they are quite competitive these days, especially at the lower end. No, they're not the cheapest, but the price premium seems reasonable (10-20%) compared with competitive machines.

If you buy my theory of an average profit of $200 per Mac sold, and an average licensing fee of $50/copy of OS X, then Apple would be ahead if OS X gained about a 12% market share (4x their current 3-ish%) even at the cost of never selling another Mac again. Personally, I don't think their hardware market would disappear -- there will always be a market for upscale products, just like the existence of the Honda Accord hasn't driven BMW and Mercedes into bankruptcy.

Jwblase, you wrote:

Apple software on beige box PC hardware won't happen because Apple would lose control over the experience: If they can't guarantee this "Apple Experience" for the customer, then they'd rather take the hit on $$, and do it their way.

After all... when Apple currently has $9 billion in the bank (comparable to Dell's $10 billion), I don't think that Apple's doing that bad on their own. Marketshare is only part of the equation. Experience is all of it, as far as Apple is concerned.

The iPod is a great example of this. Apple makes the hardware (iPod), the software (iTunes), and the online service (iTunes Music Store). You can't play their DRM-encoded music on anyone else's hardware, and you can't play any other service's DRM-encoded music on your iPod. iTunes and the iTunes Music Store support Apple hardware and Apple hardware alone, and vice-versa. And this has led to Apple having a market share in digital audio players of 73 percent. If I'm at Apple, I look at the iPod model as complete and total confirmation of the integrated, end-to-end, Apple-creates-the-entire-experience approach.

Rob Miracle you are an idiot. Yeah, I'm sure we'd all LOVE your fancy homebuilt POS with the neon lights inside and the cutout window on the side. Get a life.

There are some nice comments and some very uneducated comments in this thread. As someone that worked with Apple on a major project (Core Team member of System X), I can tell you that I've been behind the curtain and know a lot about Apple's business practices that would surprise most of you.

1. There is no way in Hell Apple will ever release a version of Mac OS X that will boot on a non-Apple branded system. PERIOD. Not as long as Steve Jobs still draws breath.

2. There is a very strong possibility that Apple will resurrect the Yellow Box for Windows and the Red Box for Mac OS X that were part of the original Rhapsody development strategy. These two components will allow Mac OS X apps to run seamlessly (in virtualization, NOT emulation) under Windows, and for Windows apps to run seamlessly under Mac OS X, respectively.

3. Apple sells elegantly designed and integrated hardware and software solutions at competitive prices. The days of selling 'prestige items at a mark up' are long gone. Apple hasn't been able to sell at extremely high margins for nearly a decade. On average, Apple systems (excluding monitors) are within $400 of similarly configured competitors' machines.

Also, take a look at the historical prices of Apple hardware over the last five years. As new hardware rolls out the prices stay almost exactly the same while new systems slide into the price slots. This is a carefully planned strategy to keep prices (and margins) stable while rolling out new technologies. It's an incredibly novel business practice that few seem to pick up on (other than Apple's investors). It guarantees a steady revenue stream while keeping the flow of innovation going. There have been a couple of recent exceptions, like the Intel-based Mac mini. That system did take a $100 price hike on both models when released as compared to its PPC predecessor.

Getting back to the bet. If I had some disposable income right now, I'd up that bet well over $500 against Apple *EVER* selling a version of Mac OS X (bootable, not running in virtualization) for generic, built from parts, white box Intel systems. Not gonna happen. Will some clever hacker figure a way to do it? Most likely, but it will never be supported by Apple. It's not the way they do things and it never will be.

- Jason

I think what a lot of people don't want to understand is that Steve Jobs isn't in the business for purely money and market percentage, and so no he really doesn't want your $99 for a copy of OS X to run on a common PC no matter what the market statistics are. If he was, they would of released OS X for PCs a long time ago.

They only released Boot Camp to bring over the percentage of users who wouldn't make the switch unless they had some easy way to run their Windows apps on a Mac. This was to capture the "easy sale" market so to speak. They didn't have to do anything special except put out an inexpensive (to develop) utility to run Windows, and then sit back and watch the new sales come in and capture another 1 - 2% of the PC market. Apple picks the battles it can win without compromising their core business.

Apple is all about the culture and the experience that is what makes Apple, Apple. They only want people that want that same experience. The best comparison is buying jeans at the GAP or Old Navy. Most people won't go to the GAP to buy $200 jeans when they can go to Old Navy and buy $20 jeans. Only the people who want the GAP experience and name will go to the GAP. Apple wants their business the same way. You want the Apple experience and name, then come buy our products, else go to Walmart and buy your cheap PC. They're not out to compete on the Walmart scale market, at least as far as PCs go.

Are there high-end PCs that perform better than Macs, of course there are, they're also not $500 either, more like $1500 - $2500 or more. But most Apple users don't need that kind of performance, so Apple doesn't market there either. But I'm not sure what more you'd need then the dual duo-core or quad-cores that Apple will be putting in their G5 workstations later this year or early next year. You won't see that kind of power in a cheap PC that's for sure. Apple will give it to you for under $2500.

The under $1000 PC market where all the cheap asses want to run Mac OS X on isn't the market that Apple is going after either. The hardware in this market is unreliable, and will not last the 4 - 5 years typical Mac users keep their hardware for, and is not up to par performance wise with what typical Mac users need. Selling OS X to this market would hurt Apple's core business and ruin the experience and brand name recognition that Apple has developed.

So if you want Apple, pony up and buy the whole package, or be content with your cheap PC with Windows. Cheap ass Joe Schmoes need not apply.

Everyone is playing chess without seeing the entire board. Steve Jobs pulled an amazing stunt by keeping osx on intel parallel development going and under wraps for several years until last year. And until last year, osx on intel was unthinkable. So doing a linear extrapolation of his moves without knowing what's up his sleeves is pointless.

Hi, I'd just like to comment that Leopard's release will likely mark the availability of OS X for generic hardware. I spoke to an Apple Representative and was squeezing him for information on this matter 2 weeks ago. Whether it be by a Bootcamp'ish product, or a modified installer for OS X retail (more likely), I see OS X on generic boxes very soon. As soon as I touched on this matter (Leopard running on generics), he refused to talk anymore. Benefit of the doubt anyone? My prediction is that with the release of Leopard, it will have an installer that will detect whether you have BIOS or an EFI compatible motherboard, and install accordingly. All evidence points towards this direction. Apple could have taken far more drastic measures to make sure their OS would run *only* on their hardware, and didn't. DRM you say? pffft. They knew full well their TPM chips would get cracked, Apple is not run by a moron. Disclaimer: I am a Windows and a Linux user

(Win XP 32/Pro/Corp, Kororaa/XGL)

How many people are buying Macs specifically because of the operating system and the hardware, and how many are buying them because they have pretty cases? Look at sales since the iMac was released.

There will always be a market in expensive, high-end hardware in a pretty case. If customers only wanted the cheapest ugliest tat, companies like Alienware wouldn't be doing so well for themselves.

I really can't see the logical argument against opening up OS X to generic PCs. OS X remains the only viable competitor to Windows at the moment and Apple should take the opportunity while it has it.

Most of the arguments I've heard against the move just strike me as elitist, from customers happy to remain a minority.

I agree with your basic arguments. What a lot of people forget is that Apple is first and foremost a hardware company. Everything it does is designed to sell more hardware. The profit margins for iTunes are very small, but the margins (and revenues) from using iTunes to sell iPods are much larger.

If the above premise is true, it would be insanity for Apple to ship OS X to run on generic Intel hardware. Its goal is to get Windows users to buy Apple hardware; if it carries along sales of Apple software, great, but that's not the core objective.

Here's an idea:

What if Apple took a page out of the Be handbook?

Let the PC-Joe Shmoes have a dumbed-down and time-limited version of OS X. Perhaps not 100% free, but also not the 'full experience.' Think along the lines of a livecd which, if installed, stops booting after ~30 days or so.

A.) Who wants to reinstall their OS every 30 days?

B.) Would not such a tactic be one of the better advertisement campaigns for selling more Apple hardware?

Forgive my ignorance but - when it comes to OEM installation of OSX on non apple harware; isn't that in violation of the agreement a box maker like HP or Dell has with MSFT? I could have sworn there was a "no 2 OSes" clause in those agreements?
If that is true why would any box maker forsake 90% share MSFT for 3% share Apple?

Boosman, you are wrong, and Cringely is right.

Apple will do it. Marketshare.

If I could buy OSX and install and dualboot it on my Windows PC, I would. I am not interested in the magical Mac hardware.

It sounds to me like the majority of comments against releasing a PC-compatible version of OS X come from people who have little to no experience with Windows, Linux, or the details of operating systems in general; I have to wonder exactly *what* they are basing their opinions on.

Windows runs poorly because it is a poor operating system, period. Ask anyone who has to program for it; ask anyone who knows anything about OS design. Other, cheaper OS options do everything Windows does, better *and* faster. The two things that keep Windows ahead of Linux in the commodity PC market right now, however, are its (mostly) unified presentation and its large library of software (installed user base really falls into the second category).

If I could get the OS X presentation and software on my PC, I would pay a large amount of money to do so, and I think I can say the same for most of my compatriots. I would even go so far as to say that Apple has been driven / is driving to this goal for nearly a decade: the move from proprietary buses to PCI, the switch from SCSI to IDE, dropping ADB for USB, and finally adopting the Intel Core architecture all have brought Apple to the point that releasing a general-purpose PC-compatible OS X derivative would barely be a stretch for them. And now that more hardware companies, graphics card companies especially, are creating drivers for Linux, OS X has even greater potential.

I would also argue that Apple is not a hardware company but a brand company. Controlling the hardware was a pragmatic move which happened to increase their profits, true, but the main benefit was in the user experience - you get a better, more uniform user experience from the Mac OS, and if Apple can force you to buy their hardware at the same time, so much the better. It's the same with the iPod and iTunes: iTunes was the end, iPod was the means, and selling more iPods is now just gravy for Apple.

Now that the difference between Mac hardware and commodity PC hardware has essentially evaporated (Quanta makes most laptops sold here) and hardware manufacturers have been trained by MS to provide their own drivers, Apple is in a position to get a huge market share for relatively little development cost. Let us not forget, developer versions of Tiger already run on white boxes, although without official Apple sanction.

The real question of PC-based OS X isn't, "Why would Apple do that?" It's, "why hasn't Apple done it?"

What seems to be the obvious way for Apple to confront windows and the PC business is the revival of the "yellow box" project, which would allow software developed for macs (compiled to x86) to run under windows. This would allow software houses to target windows and apple for their binaries, attracting more developers to their platform. If they could manage to do that and an optional port of yellow box to linux/*bsd, Apple could boost in the mid term the amount of software available to their platform, while crushing the idea of using .net and java for developing desktop applications completely. Problem is that Apple has its own internal conflicts, and the yellow box project can be halted again anytime.

I would pay 500 for OsX on a pc. anyday.

bsd has a base for drivers. they have the popularity. They could easily kill microsoft right now.

As for support, if you ever wanted to know why windows costs so much, call microsoft support and ask what the last case number was in the ball park. they take an average of 7000 calls a day taking at least 1 hour to resolve and 2 hours for pro. you do the math. 10k man hours a day x 365 x times an average pay of 15hr for personal and 25 hr for pro. Lets add to that number all the Oems. who do take more calls a day. lets just say HP, gateway, dell and Ibm take the same number of calls a day.

10k hrs x5 x 365 =
182.5 million man hours of support per year and lets say they all use over sea's and only pay an average of $10hr. 1.8 billion dollars a year. Ok now lets say Apple is gonna take that loss. You now have to add to the firstt three or so years, training hundreds of thousand tech to support mac. lets say mac sold with no support avail. then what you have is a really nice looking KDE, and they lose image. Ok lets add yet another part. osX is now availible to cheap, broke sob's who would rather pirate they pay. now you have yet another problem, hack software that breaks alot. so we have another image problem and sales losses.

All in all i don't think apple will do it not becuase they can't, they don't want to take on ms. but because it would be a real big pain in the arse.

There are a few pretty serious flaws in your logic. I won't go into all of them, but will address the most important flaw in your logic. Apple's Mac business would not suddenly dry up if they offered OS X for Windows machines. The fanatical loyal Mac base would continue to buy Macs. A number of people hesitant to buy a Mac prior to Bootcamp will now also buy a Mac instead of a Dell. Apple's computers have a cool factor unmatched by anything in the PC world. A number of PC users would buy OS X and have dual boot capability. With enough purchasers of OS X, more applications would be developed and make OS X more desirable. Apple could solve the driver problem by relying on the manufacturers to produce drivers, or the open source community.

Apple can do this, and they will, just because it will rattle Microsoft. It doesn't have to work with every single thing right out of the box - just PCs that are XP-capable, which means (thanks to Microsoft's enforcement of requirements on PC makers) that it has a reasonable set of capabilities. And it doesn't have to work as fast as a made-by-Apple box; in fact it's BETTER if it works just a little slower, fast enough to show Windows people what they're missing and slowed-down enough to make them want to buy an Apple product next time.

Even better would be a "Live OSX" CD, like the Live Linux CDs one can download. Imagine an Apple salesman walking into a Windows corporation, booting off a CD or DVD or USB drive, and demonstrating an Apple environment and capabilities ON THE USER'S OWN DATA. They may not sell hardware today, but they'll get the replacement orders as equipment gets older.

One thing most people are missing is that this is the logical next step after the Mac mini.

The Mac mini allowed people to keep their prior investment in keyboard, mouse, and monitor while upgrading the computer. Boot Camp allows people to keep their prior investment in Windows XP and Windows applications.

The switch to a much faster computer just became easier because prior investments are not thrown away. And with so few Intel Core computers being sold by others, Apple has an edge. (If I look at Sunday's ads from the big stores, they are still littered with Celerons and Pentiums.)

So I can see Apple moving on to virtualization with this philosophy but they won't be selling OS X for use on PCs from other manufacturers.

I don't believe that Apple's hardware business would dry-up if OSX ran on any PC. I think that a large appeal to Apple's hardware is its design, and so far that is something that PC manufacturers haven't even come close to matching.

The mac mini is a great example of a computer that I would like to have in my home. It's not the OS i care about. In fact, the OS is the reason I haven't bought one, because I feel like dumping $500 for a showpiece that I can't really work on (.NET developer) would be a bit of a waste. But now, being able to dual-boot, or just run XP all the time, I am seriously considering one.

I do agree that opening up OSX to be used on any PC would have little appeal to many people. This is especially true if it didn't work flawlessy with all of the hardware on the market.

I disagree with Cringley's belief that Boot Camp is good for selling more copies of Windows. XP has been out for a very long time, and since most people buy computers to replace old ones, they probably have a spare license available.

I don't think that OSX is any competition for Windows in the short term. In the long term, however, I wouldn't be surprised if some Linux-based OS becomes usable enough for most consumers and does end up providing serious competition for Windows. And when this happens, it just might be OSX leading the way. All it is going to take is for a few other issues to be addressed, many of which will as more and more apps move from a Windows platform to a Web platform, and as more open source software matures.

It is greatly misunderstood what exactly comprises the OS X kernel. "The no it's a mach kernel" crowd never got a simple fact: it is both. The mach roots of the OS X provided only basic internal kernel scheduling and some memory management, but of the mach kernel threads one is an in-house usb stack, one is an in-house graphics driver, and one runs the "rest" the great majority of which is actually FreeBSD based--just as the unix userland is.

So if you want to know how well OS X can work on generic computers, get yourself a copy of the FreeSBIE livecd and try it out.

Apple is in the business of selling really cool copy protection dongles for their software.

The only exceptions are QuickTime Pro (strategic API), FileMaker and PowerSchool (business units that would go broke without Windows versions).

You can get OS X for PCs today, starting at $599: It comes in a tiny square box with a really cute, Windows-compatible copy protection device inside called the Mac mini. Works great with KVM switches and standard networking to fully integrate with your generic homebuilt PC.

bsd runs out of the box why would OS-X be so much harder?

What if Apple took a page out of the Be handbook?

Call Be and let us know how it worked out for them.

You're right, he's wrong. It's suicide for their hardware business, they'd never do it.

First: generic drivers do exist. Linux runs on a plethora of hardware because of generic drivers. The PC/XT, PC/AT ans PS/2 specs define how different pieces of hardware interact. Generic drivers for video cards can work perfectly, but will not use hardware acceleration, for example.

Second: Apple will not rely on 3rd party computer makers to create their own drivers for Mac OS X. Today, only a small fraction of the add-in card makers develop drivers for OS X. Some of them, because they develop hardware specificly for the Mac. Others because they simply want to.

Third: Apple is not providing BootCamp because they want people to have choice. Nor because Apple is a nice company. Nor because of the added ease for switchers... They are doing it because their hardware is now pretty much a plain PC. And a plain PC "sh