Cringely Predicts Apple to Ship OS X for Any PC 789
boosman writes "In his current column, and in a similar op-ed piece in The New York Times, Robert X. Cringely predicts that Apple 'will announce a product similar to Boot Camp to allow OS X to run on bog-standard 32-bit PC hardware.' I dissect why this is unthinkable and challenge Cringely to a public bet on the subject."
They may have to (Score:2, Interesting)
I want OSX on my Dell (Score:3, Interesting)
Not any time soon, but eventually this will happen (Score:3, Interesting)
I'm actually interested in getting a linux box up at work, as an introduction to what office software is available on it..
It's an interesting idea (Score:1, Interesting)
1) as the article mentions, it undercuts Apple's hardware business. It only makes sense if Apple is going to become a software-only business (except for items such as the iPod); and
2) Jobs already went down that road with the x86 version of NextStep, and then OpenStep, when NeXT stopped making hardware. They couldn't make sufficient money on it, even with OS prices of several hundred dollars per unit. How has the equation changed?
3) Should Apple price their OS X on x86 offering at a level comparable to Windows, MS would do everything it could to undercut them -- it has deep pockets and an entrenched position with vendors. I.e. MS wouldn't stay still.
I think "no" is a pretty safe bet unless something fundamental changes (even more fundamental than Intel Macs!).
Re:idiots (Score:2, Interesting)
Like it killed Microsoft?
Come on - Microsoft is vulnerable - Vista is severely wounded, the vendors are all looking for something new for the fall back-to-school and christmas seasons - this could be IT.
And which are they going to have bigger profit margins on - a CD that they sell for $200 or a mac mini at $500?
Plus, how many companies would like to get off the MS treadmill?
This could quadruple their market share in the next 12 months.
Re:idiots (Score:1, Interesting)
Don't be dumb. Apple is miniscule in the PC marketplace. They ALWAYS have been. If they were to sell OS/X for any Intel PC, it would be a BIG bonus to their bottom line. Not many people buy Apple computers FOR OS/X - please don't be so naive. However, if they could sell it for the PC...even if it were something to let folks dual boot....or install natively....much less make deals with PC makers to allow it to be sold pre-installed, it would be good for EVERYONE.
It would be good for Apple - as they would have a revenue stream they have NEVER had in their lifetime.
It would be good for MS - another retail, commercial, VIABLE, desktop OS....they could make it even easier by helping Apple let their systems interoperate even better. This will make MS look better to governments around the world.
It would be good for consumers. OS/X is a decent OS. It's really good for grandma and grandpa with it's simplicity.
This is the first time EVER that Apple could actually open up and do something good - for themselves, and the marketplace, and all it will take is some driver coding and some tweaks - not much work at all really - and whammo....
The only other issue would be them NOT overpricing it. People won't buy it if they try and sell it for like $300. An $89 upgrade and $149 full version will be a godsend. And if they can manage to get in with the likes of Dell, Gateway, Toshiba, etc, etc, for options for consumers...
I think Cocoa apps on Win is more likely (Score:5, Interesting)
This would allow developers to continue developing Cocoa for Mac and have instant ports to Windows; no dual booting or emulation involved.
Re:More likely than Apple dropping OS X for Window (Score:5, Interesting)
I think he has it backwards (Score:5, Interesting)
It would be a nice revenue stream, but... (Score:1, Interesting)
Mac OS, on the other hand, ships on media that costs something approaching a thousand dollars in some cases, as you can only buy it on a computer. And the hardware that comes with that OS cost apple money. This is one of the reasons, I believe, that Mac OS is based upon Free/Net/Open BSD; to help offset R&D costs becuase the OS itself isn't that profitable. SO this would make sense as a revenue stream.
But the reason why Apple has such a great reputation for a solid OS that crashes considerably less than average is twofold:
1) It's based on other OSes that have a sane drivers/program space implementation, such that a single bad driver or program doesn't collapse the system
2) It only supports around ten computers.
The latter is very important. The real reason why Windows XP has retained the nastiness of BSOD is third party drivers being pieces of shit.
It's tempting to say that Apple would want to make a shitload of cash on their OS, but at the same time I don't think they want to have to surmount the drivers issue and start getting a piece of shit reputation.
Re:More likely than Apple dropping OS X for Window (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:I want OSX on my Dell (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:More Likely: Windows OEM (Score:5, Interesting)
If you look at how Apple is presenting Boot Camp, everything from the text of the press release to the design of the icon suggests Apple is positioning it as the new Classic; it's a tool to allow people to run their old apps while they transition to OS X. In other words, the shift here is that Apple is positioning OS X not just as an alternative to Windows, but as a successor.
So, why shouldn't Apple bundle Windows, then? After all, they bundled OS 9 with OS X, for use in the Classic environment. Well, I don't think there's much point in this case. Regular users are not going to be interested in dual booting; they can barely use one operating system. Two markets will take an interest: the enterprise market, and tech enthusiasts. In both of these markets, people don't really care if Windows is pre-installed, as they probably have copies kicking around already. As such there's no good reason for Apple to put itself in a position where it's relying on Microsoft for OEM copies of Windows.
Re:I want OSX on my Dell (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:More likely than Apple dropping OS X for Window (Score:5, Interesting)
If you have an experiment where pushing button A in response to a flashing light gives you a reward 70% of the time, and pushing buton B 30%, college students will converge on a rate of pushing A of 70%, but rats will end up pushing A nearly 100% of the time.
This means that in a hundred trials, the rats get 70 treats, students 58.
Which illustrates the danger of trying to get predictions "right". If there is no downside, you shouldn't worry about guessing wrong occasionally, and go with the approach that maximizes your reward relative to effort, rather than attempting to be right 100% of the time which in many if not most cases is impossible.
So, if you're a pundit, an occasional wild stab in the dark doesn't hurt; if it doesn't come true, the downside is very minimal. But if it it does come true, you get to strut around like you've got a private channel to Gold almighty.
Re:They may have to (Score:5, Interesting)
But that doesn't mean there aren't a lot of geeks out there that would buy an official version of Mac OS X that "just works."
There is an upside and a downside for Apple. Downside is it's harder to make OS X such a great experience when it's going on hardware they didn't build.
The upside, aside from any profit made from the sales, is that if they do a good enough job on it, you may be able to lure that person into buying an Apple computer the next time they need an upgrade.
My transition has been like this:
- Age 8 to 17, hardcore PC user and mac "hater"
- Age 18 to 23, hardcore PC user and ambivalent mac spectator
- Age 24-26, PC user and occasional Mac user (to help friends and family)
- Age 26-28, iPod owner several times over, and fan of Mac OS X technology (still PC user)
- Age 29, PowerMac G5 and Mac Mini user, and an Apple sticker on the back of my car.
THEY'VE WON.
I still program mostly on Windows systems, and still like Windows for some things, but it's safe to say I am getting fanatical about Apple.
The more you start using some of their stuff, the more you like it and want to use more of their stuff. Introducing Mac OS X that can run on a regular PC may be the taste that can push Apple of the edge.
You know, you get geeks using Mac OS X, like me, and next thing you know, your whole family is running it. This is what happened to me. Everyone now comes to me for advice on what to buy, and I tell them a Mac, every time. Mac mini if they want to save money, or a macbook, imac, or powermac if they can afford it.
Cringely is flat-out wrong. (Score:3, Interesting)
The last time it was possible to legally run the Mac OS on non-Apple hardware, Apple nearly went under because nearly everyone stopped buying Apple hardware and their revenues dried up, and they didn't have anything to offset that shortfall. Selling OS X for generic PCs wouldn't offset the shortfall, either. They'd have to price it high enough to maximize revenue, but low enough so that more people would buy it than pirate it. I just don't see that price being enough to make up for the lost hardware sales.
I've fleshed out some other reasons in a journal posting, as well, the link's in my sig.
~Philly
Re:More likely than Apple dropping OS X for Window (Score:5, Interesting)
You mean like the Mac switch to intel a year early, which all the Mac geeks killed him for? Sure, he is right on some things, and wrong on others. His horrid reputation on slashdot however is a result of him not drinking the kool aid of slashdot group think.
If there is one thing his opinion columns always are, that is entertaining.
Re:Not going to happen. (Score:3, Interesting)
While I agree that this is unlikely, I can see a potential positive outcome for Apple in doing this, and it's tied to the findings of the MS antitrust case.
Remember there, where it was found that Microsoft's main thrust was to have developers adopt the Windows APIs? The reason they took a hard stance against Netscape and Java was because they exposed APIs which didn't tie developers (and therefore, consumers) to the Windows platform. Microsoft saw the creation of large-scale APIs upon which applications could be built for more platforms than just their own as a major threat. The idea is to keep the "applications barrier to entry" high, so that it's not so easy for people to move away from Windows.
As unlikely as it may ultimately prove, the case for Yellow Box is fairly clear: give developers a good cross-platform API that will allow them to write applications to run on both Windows and the Macintosh, and you add value to the Macintosh platform. And since the Cocoa APIs are considered good by a great number of developers, there are already folks who will happily use it, and may potentially convince their friends.
At the end of the day, perhaps developers might choose not to write Mac versions of their Windows apps due to constraints of time or money. But if they could write it once and sell to both markets, then that's a clear & immediate benefit-- assuming they're happy to use the Cocoa/Carbon APIs, anyway.
-Q
Re:One vote for the blogger - Apple won't do it (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:They may have to (Score:2, Interesting)
If they play their cards right, it won't have too. Here's a scenario:
Summary:
As a result, Apple will have drastically expanded their customer base, installed OS base, and mindshare within a 6 month window. They would have effectively broken the Microsoft OS monopoly while increasing their hardware business (and raising their stock dramatically.)
Comment removed (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:That's telling him! (Score:5, Interesting)
Paul Thurrott actually makes a very similar argument to this in his recent review of Boot Camp [winsupersite.com].
Assuming that Thurrott is right with his loose facts regarding where Apple makes its profit, it's hard to argue really.
Of course they will (Score:5, Interesting)
But it won't happen until one or the other of the following becomes true:
1) Apple PC hardware sales become insufficiently profitable to remain a (mostly) hardware company
or
2) Apple decides it is in its best interests to fight a head-to-head OS marketshare war with Microsoft
Which won't happen until at least:
2a) The minimum-spec PCs themselves have a very large market penetration. (I think minimum-spec will at least require EFI.)
and
2b) Microsoft's continued development of apps for OSX can be lost without serious strategic harm
and
2c) Microsoft interoperability protocols are sufficiently documented or openness is legally enforced such that MS would have serious trouble fighting dirty
and
2d) Apple is supremely confident that OSX can crush XP/Vista/Whatever in terms of user experience
Of these, (1) is clearly not the case. It seems almost certain that (2a) is not true. (2b) will be solved if Apple comes out with their own office suite, or once OpenOffice has a version truly native to OSX. (2c) is close, and (2d) is obviously here right now.
In all, probably not this year. If it doesn't happen by one month after Vista's release, then I think it'll be a long while yet.
(Hmmm... I wonder if the real reason 32-bit Vista does not support non-BIOS-emulating EFI is to reduce the number of "Vista-ready" PCs that are OSX-ready? Microsoft might well be fearful of this move and have already executed their countermeasure. Can Apple make a BIOS version of OSX? Would they? Will manufacturers generally support EFI if Microsoft doesn't require it?)
PS: Now that I've placed my bets, it's time to go RTFAs.
Re:Not going to happen. (Score:1, Interesting)
Contribute to the porting effort of bringing GNUstep [gnustep.org] to Windows. If we can get GNUstep looking like an authentic Windows application (needs a lot of work, but they already have a theming engine, and work on horizontal menus), then there might be the possibility of building code for X11, Windows, and Cocoa, all from the same source. In other words, something resembling what YellowBox would have been.
GNUstep already makes a good cross X11/Cocoa framework. It takes a little bit of effort, but it's possible to get a GNUstep app to compile on the Mac without modification. (The other direction I'm not so sure of.)
I'd probably buy it (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:They may have to (Score:3, Interesting)
Mac clones all over again. Mac OS hardware sales would be raped. They tried that.
Or maybe only via online order, which first points you to download a "compatibility test" program which will list any devices which won't work.
How many people would pass that test?
Like I said, not my problem, and not insurmountable.
But it *is* a problem, and its not going to solve itself.
BSD does not run smoothly on all hardware, countless video and audio chipsets along with all the funky crap hardware that's proprietary to a given model of laptop are constant pains. A lot of them can be *made* to work by a savvy tech type, but it won't be plug and play. And most tech savvy people don't buy the sorts of systems the average consumer ends up with. We don't usually even try with a craptastic pile of low quality proprietary junk. The average budget-ass emachine, or even Dell, Compaq, or HP wonder-box is often full of hardware that barely works under windows, never mind BSD, or Mac OS.
How about replacing the bold part with, "I guess OS X doesn't work well with crappy hardware, so I should go out and buy a Mac"?
The average consumer doesn't really beleive they have crappy hardware, especially if it worked under windows. Therefore they'll conclude its the Apple OS that's crappy.
Or the more ambivalent, "I guess OS X doesn't support much hardware yet. I guess I'll pass for now until they get their act together."
So, now Apple needs to get its act together before OS X is a viable OS? That's a big step backwards for Apples rep... OSX becomes another Linux distro... Its cool and it just works... sometimes... but the pundits will be advising customers its "not ready for the desktop yet".
For what its worth, I agree OS X for generic PC would probably sell well. But I think potential damage it would do to Apples reputation for quality and the issue of cannibalized hardware sales could easily do Apple more net harm than good.
I'd buy it! (Score:2, Interesting)
They really ought to consider licensing the OS to OEMs again - they can do what Microsoft did with Windows NT: have a hardware compatibility list and refuse customer support if you stray from that list; that would limit their support costs and keep compatibility very high. Leave it up to the user to decide whether or not to stray from that list, or leave it up to the OEM to provide the support on Apple-unsupported hardware. Apple hardware would of course always be stable running OS X.
OS X? Great stuff, high quality, very stable. Apple hardware? Meh. They've had too many lemons. Heck, with the warranty claims, they may be far better off focusing on the software (where they really shine) and leave the hardware up to others.
Re:I want OSX on my Dell (Score:1, Interesting)
Asa Dotzler had the same problem [mozillazine.org].
It is more of an issue when you want a laptop without using a mouse, like his case.
I use a 12-button wireless mouse with my desktop, and would consider a single mouse button complete hell.