[kevs]

As a happy Mac user for three years now, I keep reading how Apple has 3% market share on and on. Oh well I feel it's like the world is driving Yugos and we're in Mercedes.

But I'm curious, why does not Apple just put it's OS in the marketplace and see how it fares?

I would think that if buyers could get Compaq's and Gateways with OS10 or Windows, geez, at the same price, Apple would have 80% market share within 5-6 years.

And I don't think they would really lose much in sales to the hardware line of desktop and laptops, I really don't. Any opinions on this?

[wataru]

This has been argued into the ground. Do a search to find out why it's a terrible idea.

[Chuckit]

Bottom line: Apple doesn't care whether OS X has 5% market share or 80% market share. They do not make their money from sales of the OS. They mostly make their money from hardware sales.

Also, it isn't as simple as just "putting its OS in the marketplace." It would involve porting pretty much the entire higher-level OS to the x86 processor architecture and it would introduce a lot more compatibility issues.

[Cadaver]

First, there's the technical hurdle of making it work on Intel/AMD hardware. Then there's the hurdle of making it work with bazillions of combinations of processors, motherboards, NICs, graphics cards, sound cards, ATA controllers, etc. Then, all the hardware manufacturers must write drivers for all their stuff.
Next, every OS X application must be recompiled for x86 processors.

There are a million problems to solve. It'll never happen.

[msuper69]

FOR PETE'S SAKE, IT'S "OS X", NOT OS 10.

[Horsepoo!!!]

Close this thread up please...for my and everyone else's sanity. For the love of God.

[Cadaver]

IBTL (in before the lock)

[jokell82]

Bad bad idea.

And in before the lock.

[Boondoggle]

I can't believe that nobody has every thought of this before...

[sniffer]

Originally posted by msuper69:
FOR PETE'S SAKE, IT'S "OS X", NOT OS 10.

No, it's "OS-ten".



..and Apple is a hardware company.

In before the locky-lock.

[kevs]

thanks, I did not know it was such a complex thing. I suppose Windows appeases all hardware makers, and hence caters to lowest common denominator. In others, from what I read here, if Apple tried it, it would make the OS unrecognizable ie, much worse.

In that case I'm happy for things to remain the same high quality I enjoy, as long as Apple stays in business for long time (I mean there were some shaky years there)

I still think i macs etc would sell well because of their terrific design, am I wrong?

And why dont they care if they only have 5% share? ( I think that's admirable) -- but I think I remember a recent campagn called switch.

side note: pet peeve: people who come on a thread to say to go see help or archives.

[sniffer]

Originally posted by kevs:

I still think i macs etc would sell well because of their terrific design, am I wrong?

The problem is that cheap to produce PC's sells in higher volumes than Apple hardware, especially if you let them on top of that run OS X - why buy Apple hardware? That's the problem.

[msuper69]

Originally posted by sniffer:
No, it's "OS-ten".



..and Apple is a hardware company.

In before the locky-lock.

I should have said 'it's "OS X" (pronounced 'ten' not 'ecks')'. I shouldn't have assumed "X" was the Roman numeral, not the letter.

[kevs]

Well it's a shame most world can't afford to experience the best OS, but I guess it like anything else. I think even Apple came up with analogy of Mercedes and BMW having only 3% share. It annoys me though you read in articles the small market share as if that's a sign of weakness.

[Kenneth]

No way.. that's not Apple style

[nobitacu]

It will be the end of the world first before Apple makes OS X for the other side.

Ming

[Appleman]

If you have a profit of let say 40 million a year with 2% market share worldwide, it doesn't mean you are going to have 400 million a year with 20% market share.
To be a relatively small company has its advantages: faster dealing with problems, not too many different hardware configurations, etc.
I'm fine with the market share of 2%. Everybody driving Mercedes? Pffff.

[mitchell_pgh]

The Kiss of DEATH for Apple would be some PC guy to take the time to install the OS only to find that it doesn't work well with his video card, hard drive, sound card, keyboard, mouse, firewire card, usb card, joystick etc.

That person wouldn't think "Gee, OS X for PCs stink" they would think "Gee, OS X and Apple stinks!"

By having control of both the hardware and software, Apple can deliver a complete package.

IF ANYTHING, I think Apple should give the OS upgrades and iApps away for free and beef up the price of the hardware by another $200 or so and make a big deal out of the fact that you get free upgrades for as long as the hardware will support them.

For a while, I thought Apple was going to make consumers think "Well, if I buy a Mac, I get free applications and upgrades..." but now, none of that's true after the initial purchase.

Just my 2¢

[sniffer]

Originally posted by mitchell_pgh:

IF ANYTHING, I think Apple should give the OS upgrades and iApps away for free and beef up the price of the hardware by another $200 or so and make a big deal out of the fact that you get free upgrades for as long as the hardware will support them.

I agree with your perspective. Anything that makes you confident as a buyer that what you pay is what you get back is a good thing.
I would've invested some of that amount to make a new level in quality controll. Don't get me wrong, Apple have a good industry standard, but I want the best even if it's just for an entry level iBook.

[mitchell_pgh]

Originally posted by sniffer:
I agree with your perspective. Anything that makes you confident as a buyer that what you pay is what you get back is a good thing.
I would've invested some of that amount to make a new level in quality controll. Don't get me wrong, Apple have a good industry standard, but I want the best even if it's just for an entry level iBook.

I guess I shouldn't get upset. Apple is making money, our OS is finally rocking, the G5 is arguably one of the fastest consumer desktops out there, new applications are springing up all over the place...

It just drives me absolutely crazy when I see someone buying the cheapest no-name bottom of the barrel computer they can possibly find on the internet by some shady run by night place only to be furious when something goes wrong and they can't get any support.

BUT I GOT SUCH A GREAT DEAL!

I'll be honest, I've only seen 3 or 4 Windows based computers EVER that have made me say "WOW". And it's usually by some Öber Geek that has his whole house connected to his computer. Too bad none of them had social lives.

[angelmb]

Originally posted by Appleman:
I'm fine with the market share of 2%. Everybody driving Mercedes? Pffff.

he he, I read the same from a big Volvo guy: our market share is 1%, do we want to grow up it?, no, we are not a mainstreet brand, what we want is the fidelity of our clients. That is all. Side note: Volvo is the world leader in "try a car and then buy that car". Remember 1985´s Test drive a Macintosh?

[Sage]

Originally posted by mitchell_pgh:
IF ANYTHING, I think Apple should give the OS upgrades and iApps away for free and beef up the price of the hardware by another $200 or so and make a big deal out of the fact that you get free upgrades for as long as the hardware will support them.

I totally agree with that.

Now if only Apple hired you so that you could put in your idea.

[Appleman]

Originally posted by mitchell_pgh:
I think Apple should give the OS upgrades and iApps away for free and beef up the price of the hardware by another $200 or so and make a big deal out of the fact that you get free upgrades for as long as the hardware will support them.

For a while, I thought Apple was going to make consumers think "Well, if I buy a Mac, I get free applications and upgrades..." but now, none of that's true after the initial purchase.

Just my 2¢

You are absolutely wrong!
How long do you use a Mac after buying it new?
Every year there is an update for US$129,-.
(you don't have to buy it, but you do: we are not like windos users who are still using win98).
So, let say after two, three years you sell your "old" Mac and buy a new one.
(that's for the happy ones among us, the non-pro's, unlike the pro's, whose bosses are paying for their Macs, unlike the Americans, who pay much less for a Mac in the States than in the rest of the world (iPod mini is sold for €299,- in Europe: do the calculation with Calculator (after updating the exchange rates))).

You would spent 3 x US$129,- = US$387,- asuming you would have a Mac for three years, before you buy a new one, and asuming you are going to upgrade every year or so.

Just my one billion cents...

[mitchell_pgh]

Originally posted by sniffer:
No, it's "OS-ten".



..and Apple is a hardware company.

In before the locky-lock.

I would have to argue that Apple is no longer just a hardware company. Granted, they do make a majority of their profits off of the sale of hardware, but I've been forking up $129 every 18 months, and I have the exact same hardware.

Also, witht the advent of iTunes for Windows, they are obviously breaking out in to new areas of software development.

Also it's OS X, but the X is a roman numeral... so you would say OS Ten... so you are both right... Technically, it could be either.

[mitchell_pgh]

Originally posted by Appleman:
You are absolutely wrong!
How long do you use a Mac after buying it new?
Every year there is an update for US$129,-.
(you don't have to buy it, but you do: we are not like windos users who are still using win98).
So, let say after two, three years you sell your "old" Mac and buy a new one.
(that's for the happy ones among us, the non-pro's, unlike the pro's, whose bosses are paying for their Macs, unlike the Americans, who pay much less for a Mac in the States than in the rest of the world (iPod mini is sold for €299,- in Europe: do the calculation with Calculator (after updating the exchange rates))).

You would spent 3 x US$129,- = US$387,- asuming you would have a Mac for three years, before you buy a new one, and asuming you are going to upgrade every year or so.

Just my one billion cents...

I use my mac for around 3-4 years before buying a new Mac. If everyone paid an extra $200 per machine, it would ensure that they would make considerably more then their OS upgrades make as everyone would pay for them.

Also, the upgrades are around every 16-18 months...

I feel like the upgrades are going to become a major problem for Apple. While I always upgrade, many other people don't, or stop at the final upgrade before a paid upgrade. There are tone of 10.2.8 people (even in this forum) so I can only guess how many are out there.

Like I said, Apple will never do this, but it would be nice if the iApps and OS upgrades were free for the life of the computer. It would make so many headaches go away.

[Fonzie]

I'm sorry to say that I think Apple Computer is turning into more of a music company rather than a software company. I mean the publish iTunes Music Store and iPod Mini. What about new Mac's instead. There were no need for a new iPod. I think I'm all crazy on pills. They would benefit from having OS X on all personal computers or the socalled PC's. They could easily fix whatever problems there might be with having OS X on a new platform. I mean how did they even make the transition from OS 9 to OS X at all ? Hard work perhaps. They can do it again. Am I high or what? LOL Just a mix of emotions. I'm a newbie, can you tell hehe.

[sniffer]

Originally posted by mitchell_pgh:
I would have to argue that Apple is no longer just a hardware company.

No, Apple is a hardware company. All the iTMS, iApps, and the rest of the bunch is all about selling more hardware. iTMS is a good testomony of this because I can't imagine how the hell they come up with the idea in the first place without thinking from the perspective of a hardware company. Imagine Steve: "Look people - how do we sell more iPods?" Then they created iTMS.

Microsoft is a software company that also happen to have a mouse division.

Apple is a hardware company that happen to develop their own software.

People seems to confuse those facts and you will not ever see OS X running on a Dell and competing with Windows because the truth is: Apple is a hardware company. If Apple starts to act like they forget what they was to begin with (hasn't happen yet), then I'll certanly have a reason to worry, bigtime. /End of line.

[RGB]

Originally posted by Fonzie:
LOL Just a mix of emotions. I'm a newbie, can you tell hehe.

Yup.

But that's okay. We all gotta start somewhere.

[Appleman]

Originally posted by mitchell_pgh:
It would make so many headaches go away.

Specially on a Sunday morning....

[kevs]

I guess Apple technically is a hardware company, but I think of it as a software company. When I tell people they should be on a Mac, I'm referring the Operating system, the OS.

I agree with Fonzie , if there is a will there is a way, they got itunes up for Windows and looked what happened 70% market share of that niche.

I think if they could go to Compaq, gateways, and say, look, we'll offer you our OS down the road, and let the consumer decide, it be could be near end of Windows. And the price of all Apple hardware could come down to earth as Apple would be so flush in funds.

I guess I hate to see mediocrity (windows) succeed so much, be maybe that's the world.

[Millennium]

Aside from the face that x86 is an inferior architecture that would have died long ago were it not for the backward-compatibility issue, the sad fact is that Apple still makes its money from (admittedly overpriced) hardware. No one would buy Macs if you could get OSX on a Compaq or an HP, and Apple doesn't make enough money from its software to sustain itself on that alone.

Besides which, that would truly be a dark day, when what is cheap (the archaic x86 architecture) truly has its final triumph out over what is good. May that day never come; may those who believe in actual technological progress always be able to hold out, in however small numbers, against the unwashed masses who don't even know they're being duped.

[MacGorilla]

Besides, the Mars Rovers use PowerPCs, not that x86 garbage.

[[APi]TheMan]

Originally posted by MacGorilla:
Besides, the Mars Rovers use PowerPCs, not that x86 garbage.

Even Xbox 2 is going to use a PowerPC chip...

[ryju]

Originally posted by Millennium:
Besides which, that would truly be a dark day, when what is cheap (the archaic x86 architecture) truly has its final triumph out over what is good. May that day never come; may those who believe in actual technological progress always be able to hold out, in however small numbers, against the unwashed masses who don't even know they're being duped.

You should make a movie.

[Webscreamer]

Originally posted by MacGorilla:
Besides, the Mars Rovers use PowerPCs, not that x86 garbage.

Do you know how big of flash memory is on board one Rover? Seems like there is no HD and it's all driven off flash for system and storage...

Any idea?

[hadocon]

Originally posted by Horsepoo!!!:
Close this thread up please...for my and everyone else's sanity. For the love of God.

Hear! Hear!

also +1

[phantomo]

So what's the market share of Porsche compare to GM?

I don't care if GM sells more cars, I want a Porsche that gives me the power, the noise and the attention I get when I drive around with it.

As long as Apple is making money and keep on innovating, I don't see why they have to switch to other hardware platforms.

[Graymalkin]

Apple tried licensing its OS out to third parties before. The experiment was a failure for Apple in several ways. Apple was making a fraction of the money off MacOS licenses that they could make off of PowerMacs. The clones also served to eat away at Apple's customers instead of PC buyers so the number of Mac users stayed roughly the same but the number of Apple customers dropped significantly.

If the technical hurdles of porting OSX kit and kaboodle to the x86 architecture were surmounted the problem of finacial feasibility would still exist. The number of MacOS users would remain constant but the number of actual Apple customers would drop. Someone wanting MacOS isn't going to pay $799 for an eMac when $499 will get them an HP running OSX. Apple would also have to make their OSX licenses competitive with Microsoft's Windows licenses. Microsoft could drop their OEM prices for HP down to 1¢ per copy in order to keep HP from shipping OSX. If Microsoft were able to secure the top 5 PC manufacturers like they did when OS/2 was viable competition; the installed base of OSX on PCs would be so miniscule it wouldn't be worth the effort for developers to support OSX/x86.

[-Q-]

Originally posted by Webscreamer:
Do you know how big of flash memory is on board one Rover? Seems like there is no HD and it's all driven off flash for system and storage...

Any idea?

From NASA's web site:

Spirit has 256 megabytes of flash memory, a type commonly used on gear such as digital cameras for holding data even when the power is off.

Those NASA engineers write some TIGHT code.

[badidea]

Originally posted by -Q-:
From NASA's web site:



Those NASA engineers write some TIGHT code.

Flash memory is expensive, you know - more would have blown the budget for the mission!

And Apple also used to write some tight code - System 7 was only about 3-4MB and I don't think that the marsrover would even need some GUI...

[Fonzie]

Originally posted by hadocon:
Hear! Hear!

also +1

Why on earth should we close up this thread ? Why are we not allowed to discuss this subject ? Or any other subject in this thread? Are you a member of the MacNN police force?

Let us discuss whatever we want even though it's beyond the original subject. It's beyond me. Let's keep this thread open for the love of God - even though he does not exist.

Let us keep this thread open just like the BBX Omega thread.

This was directed to Horsepoo btw. I suppose.

[Chuckit]

Originally posted by Fonzie:
Why on earth should we close up this thread ?

Because this is the sort of question that usually goes on a FAQ -- it keeps coming up and coming up, and people who have been here for a while find it somewhat repetitive.

[Fonzie]

Originally posted by Chuckit:
Because this is the sort of question that usually goes on a FAQ -- it keeps coming up and coming up, and people who have been here for a while find it somewhat repetitive.

But this forum does not all consist of "old" members there are still newcomers for which this subject is fun to discuss (the OSX on x86 subject). If the "old" members find it so repetetive then they should just not reply and ignore the question. It's so simple. But the human nature is like this: we are eager to discuss what's on our minds and so forth. And we want information because we are curious.

[mitchell_pgh]

Originally posted by Graymalkin:
Apple tried licensing its OS out to third parties before. The experiment was a failure for Apple in several ways. Apple was making a fraction of the money off MacOS licenses that they could make off of PowerMacs. The clones also served to eat away at Apple's customers instead of PC buyers so the number of Mac users stayed roughly the same but the number of Apple customers dropped significantly.

If the technical hurdles of porting OSX kit and kaboodle to the x86 architecture were surmounted the problem of finacial feasibility would still exist. The number of MacOS users would remain constant but the number of actual Apple customers would drop. Someone wanting MacOS isn't going to pay $799 for an eMac when $499 will get them an HP running OSX. Apple would also have to make their OSX licenses competitive with Microsoft's Windows licenses. Microsoft could drop their OEM prices for HP down to 1¢ per copy in order to keep HP from shipping OSX. If Microsoft were able to secure the top 5 PC manufacturers like they did when OS/2 was viable competition; the installed base of OSX on PCs would be so miniscule it wouldn't be worth the effort for developers to support OSX/x86.

BINGO...

And it wouldn't be long before M$ started making software to "Port" you to Windows... like they are doing with Unix.

[kevs]

I learned a heck of a lot on this thread. About 6-7 people have written things here that have been extremely insightful and I doubt would be worded or phrased anywhere on a FAQ. This is personal pet peeve: people who come on threads to say they already know the answer--and you should too-- so go to help, archives, faq.

[typoon]

Originally posted by mitchell_pgh:
I guess I shouldn't get upset. Apple is making money, our OS is finally rocking, the G5 is arguably one of the fastest consumer desktops out there, new applications are springing up all over the place...

It just drives me absolutely crazy when I see someone buying the cheapest no-name bottom of the barrel computer they can possibly find on the internet by some shady run by night place only to be furious when something goes wrong and they can't get any support.

BUT I GOT SUCH A GREAT DEAL!

I'll be honest, I've only seen 3 or 4 Windows based computers EVER that have made me say "WOW". And it's usually by some Öber Geek that has his whole house connected to his computer. Too bad none of them had social lives.

You answered your own question. Because it's the Cheapest. For me, not having to deal with viruses and having something that is pretty decent quality as well as stablility is worth the Price of a Mac and OS X to me.