Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

pedroperez80 · Oct 17, 2005, 01:19 PM

Once the switch of OS X to Intel is complete, do you think Apple should license it's OS X to non Apple hardware.

dazzla · Oct 17, 2005, 01:23 PM

Nope, cause part of Apple's appeal is it's flawless integration with everything it sells. Potential hardware compatibility would ruin their "it just works" image they have at the moment.

mpancha · Oct 17, 2005, 01:50 PM

I'd like to see how well Apple would fare against *nix and Windows on a fair playing field... so yea, I'd love to see OSX run on any piece of hardware I throw at it.

analogika · Oct 17, 2005, 01:51 PM

Does this REALLY have to be discussed every other week?

SMacTech · Oct 17, 2005, 09:04 PM

I guess pedro missed last week's episode. But sure, let Apple license it, if it will expand the user base, as that brings a larger market to me as a mac developer.

goMac · Oct 17, 2005, 09:09 PM

Originally Posted by SMacTech

I guess pedro missed last week's episode. But sure, let Apple license it, if it will expand the user base, as that brings a larger market to me as a mac developer.

What I think would be interesting is Apple bringing back the Yellow Box for Windows.

Think about it. We're all compiling for Intel now anyway. That means our Cocoa software would run seamlessly under Windows making Cocoa a cross platform programming standard. If Windows developers adopt Cocoa it gives Intel Macs at the least a broader base of applications.

OpenStep · Oct 17, 2005, 09:33 PM

Of course this going to be a flamewar but... last week I was running 10.4.1 on a ThinkPad T40 and it was like a dream come true. I wish the PowerBooks can soon complete well against the ThinkPads.

MindFad · Oct 17, 2005, 09:39 PM

Originally Posted by analogika

Does this REALLY have to be discussed every other week?

We should have a poll on this very question.

Detrius · Oct 18, 2005, 01:31 AM

Originally Posted by goMac

What I think would be interesting is Apple bringing back the Yellow Box for Windows.

Think about it. We're all compiling for Intel now anyway. That means our Cocoa software would run seamlessly under Windows making Cocoa a cross platform programming standard. If Windows developers adopt Cocoa it gives Intel Macs at the least a broader base of applications.

But then you have the support issue of customers asking why one application runs on Macs and Windows and another one doesn't. Also, in going with Yellow Box, you have the problem that none of the Cocoa programs can use Carbon. So basically, releasing Yellow Box now would mean that Apple is signing off on killing Carbon. ( Yeah, I know... not really. But the effect would be that it would kill Carbon. )

loki74 · Oct 18, 2005, 01:38 AM

Originally Posted by dazzla

Nope, cause part of Apple's appeal is it's flawless integration with everything it sells. Potential hardware compatibility would ruin their "it just works" image they have at the moment.

agreed.

goMac · Oct 18, 2005, 01:47 AM

Originally Posted by Detrius

But then you have the support issue of customers asking why one application runs on Macs and Windows and another one doesn't. Also, in going with Yellow Box, you have the problem that none of the Cocoa programs can use Carbon. So basically, releasing Yellow Box now would mean that Apple is signing off on killing Carbon. ( Yeah, I know... not really. But the effect would be that it would kill Carbon. )

Sure, that would be a problem. I think the more interesting effect would be if Cocoa caught on for Windows. Maybe Apple could pre-empt .net in Vista. At that point you'd pretty much sneakily get all the Windows developers coding Mac applications that would be compatible with Intel Macs, PowerPC Macs (maybe), and Windows. If Mac applications didn't go the other way it wouldn't be too bad. I wouldn't imagine Apple would want their iLife suite running on Window's Yellow Box anyway.

ShotgunEd · Oct 18, 2005, 06:57 AM

Originally Posted by Detrius

<snip>
So basically, releasing Yellow Box now would mean that Apple is signing off on killing Carbon. ( Yeah, I know... not really. But the effect would be that it would kill Carbon. )

Burn the witch!

barney ntd · Oct 18, 2005, 07:09 AM

What people are ignoring is simple economics: Apple make their money from HARDWARE. If they were to sell MacOS X for generic PCs they would have to charge about twice as much as they do now, and no one would buy it. To be economic as an OS-only company, they would need at least a 40% market share (figure pulled out of thin air) to cover development costs without charging more than MS. If you think they would get that kind of jump just by licensing, you're dreaming.

Barney.

Agent69 · Oct 18, 2005, 07:21 AM

People need to remember to lesson that Jobs learned with Next. Next was originally a hardware manufacturer that later became a software only company. Next was unable to get a foothold into the PC market, which was why they were available for purchase when Apple needed a new OS.

Now, people want to put Apple in the very situation that was killing Next. Sorry, but I don't see Jobs going down that road again.

Randman · Oct 18, 2005, 07:34 AM

Originally Posted by analogika

Does this REALLY have to be discussed every other week?

This should be posted on every thread.

dru · Oct 18, 2005, 12:39 PM

NO. Apple's killed the Macintosh dead, dead, dead but at the very least we can pretend such a thing exists if they don't let Dell dolts run Mac OS X as well.

Mac OS X isn't Macintosh. It isn't even NEXTSTEP. The hardware very quickly won't be Macintosh either. Bah humbug.