[Big Mac]

Okay guys, this prediction sounds pretty wacky, but work with me here:

1. Go to apple.com/macosx/;

2. Take a look at the page and think about what the headline implies.

If you're not picking up on it, I'm referring to the headline, "It's here. It's real. It's amazing. Mac OS X on Intel" (emphasis mine). It does not say Mac OS X on Intel Mac. It says Mac OS X on Intel. Now look at the introductory paragraph. It refers to Intel-based and PowerPC-based machines, not Macs. Sure it refers to Macs further down the page, but the initial references are generic. And remember, we're talking about Apple here - why would it be using generic terms like machine and computer instead of Mac? Could we be witnessing Apple's transition to PC OS vendor?

I am not saying Apple would be discontinuing hardware production any time soon, nor am I claiming Apple would officially allow OS X to run on just any PC. But it seems that Apple is embarking on the path of opening OS X up, while simultaneously redefining what a Mac is. Could a "Mac" be redefined as any computer running Mac OS X? Apple wants to grow OS X's market share, and if OS X will ever have a chance to command a substantially larger percentage of computers Apple will need to open it up. If true, the Intel switch was about much more than Mactels. Apple could be easing its customer base into a new era, in which an HP or even a Dell could be considered a Mac.

[demibob]

I don't think the heading implies anything.

[analogika]

Originally Posted by demibob

I don't think the heading implies anything.

I concur.

[bowwowman]

The tag line may mean NOTHING, but then again.......

A few years ago, at Macworld Keynote, Steve made the comment that "Once the transition to OS X is complete, we will have options.....lots of options", & then "I like options"

Nobody seemed to put any significance into that tag line either, and NOW look where we are

[tooki]

Wrong assumption. I believed all along that Apple was developing OS X for Intel. And I know I'm not the only person who suspected it. It was definitely not "nobody".

tooki

[Maflynn]

I think your reading too much of what isn't there.

As for OSX being developed on the intel all along makes sense to. I recall reading a story that apple was ready to jump over to intel but ibm convinced them to use the G5. They did and we what happended is history.

My point here is Apple was keeping its options open all along and they knew the writing on the wall with motorola. In order to compete with intel with their aggressive roll out of faster and faster cpus they needed a supplier to produce cpus on that same aggressiev level. Their competition is intel, but dell, hp, etc, so it makes a lot of sense to use the intel cpu. I'm not all that happy about it but it does make perfect business sense

Mike

[NeXTLoop]

I agree with everyone else that you're probably just reading into it. Especially when you read articles like this...

Apple doesn't need to let OS X run on generic Intel machines to grow market share.

[Chuckit]

Strange that Apple went to all the trouble to disable OS X on generic Intel machines just as they were meaning to release it for those same machines.

[SirCastor]

The website's not a good measure of such things. Apple can change their website to whatever they want in a blink of an eye. If this were some sort of hard-published document they wanted to remain accurate for a long time, then I would consider that it might be a hint. But not the website

[SpaceMonkey]

I think the language is just designed to ease people coming from the Windows world into the concept of buying into a computer that requires a new operating system. So they'll read about how great OS X is, see "on Intel," and think, "oh, Intel, I know what that is." Suddenly having to "learn how to use a Mac" doesn't seem as intimidating.

[Thain Esh Kelch]

Okay guys, this prediction sounds pretty wacky, but work with me here:

Yes it sure does.

Told you not to make a bong out of that SE/30!

[ghporter]

All it implies is that Apple would like to sell far more Intel-based Macs.

[mduell]

They say PowerPC-based machines, not Macs, yet it doesn't run on non-Mac PPC machines.

[tooki]

Very sharp observation!

tooki

[I Bent My Wookiee]

"PowerPC-based machines"

Isn't that because Xserves aren't "Macs"?

[alphasubzero949]

I'm willing to bet that Steve is treating Apple like NeXT 2.0. History appears to be repeating itself.

[Big Mac]

to alphasub - he knows where I'm going with this line of thought.

[Salty]

Originally Posted by I Bent My Wookiee

"PowerPC-based machines"

Isn't that because Xserves aren't "Macs"?

I think anything that runs Mac OS X is a Mac. Or are iBooks not Macs because they don't have Mac in the name?

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by Big Mac

he knows where I'm going with this line of thought.

Someplace where actual evidence is unnecessary in order to believe an idea?

If Apple starts charging NeXT-like prices, I guess they could try that business model, but people already complain about the relatively reasonable Mac price range. Anyway, the problem is that Apple is a hardware company. They could redefine every computer as a Mac, sure, but then they'd be giving up most of their revenue from the Mac and taking on a much bigger burden to support the suddenly gigantic platform. Sounds like a lose-lose situation if ever I heard one.

[DCapple]

maybe you are just reading it between the lines...it doesnt mean that when it says intel its refering to intel machines it still talks about intels in Mac...sometimes we just emphasize on those small details and forget about the big ones...you know what i mean?

[packetattack]

Originally Posted by Big Mac

Okay guys, this prediction sounds pretty wacky, but work with me here:

1. Go to apple.com/macosx/;

2. Take a look at the page and think about what the headline implies.

If you're not picking up on it, I'm referring to the headline, "It's here. It's real. It's amazing. Mac OS X on Intel" (emphasis mine). It does not say Mac OS X on Intel Mac. It says Mac OS X on Intel. Now look at the introductory paragraph. It refers to Intel-based and PowerPC-based machines, not Macs. Sure it refers to Macs further down the page, but the initial references are generic. And remember, we're talking about Apple here - why would it be using generic terms like machine and computer instead of Mac? Could we be witnessing Apple's transition to PC OS vendor?

I am not saying Apple would be discontinuing hardware production any time soon, nor am I claiming Apple would officially allow OS X to run on just any PC. But it seems that Apple is embarking on the path of opening OS X up, while simultaneously redefining what a Mac is. Could a "Mac" be redefined as any computer running Mac OS X? Apple wants to grow OS X's market share, and if OS X will ever have a chance to command a substantially larger percentage of computers Apple will need to open it up. If true, the Intel switch was about much more than Mactels. Apple could be easing its customer base into a new era, in which an HP or even a Dell could be considered a Mac.

Yes and no. What I mean by this is that Apple has no desire to get into the deep end of hardware compatiblity. One of Apple's hallmarks is that the hardware generally works very well (my iSight issues aside). They are able to do this because they control the hardware platform and it's very limited. Having to support an untold number of motherboards, bridge chipsets, IDE controllers, USB controllers, cheesy cheapo cards etc,. etc, etc is a not a good business model. Windows has had to do this and while they are not bad at it, we all have seen the results with buggy drivers, firmware level issues and more. Apple *MAY* release OSX to certain OEM's for limited production such as Dell offering a special Dell/Apple branded PC. The PC would have certain key parts, Dell would have the support and it would be a "lock in: to certain upgrades if you want to keep the support going.

Will OSX get into the wild? you bet, the hacker community being what it is, they will work around whatever the protections are but I dont think you will ever see a generic OSX siitting at Staples for any Intel platform.

Now, my personal opinion is that at some point, Apple will partner with someone, likely Dell and offer said limited edition OSX/intel. Dell has market pentetration and the distribution channels to make it worth while. Dell already offers a corporate version of Intel that locks the hardware version to a 15 month lifespan so Apple would not have to deal with specs changing every three months like Windows does now.

MikeS
hackamac.packetattack.com

[zerologic]

My 2¢: I can't wait until 4/1/06. ;-)

[I Bent My Wookiee]

Originally Posted by Salty

I think anything that runs Mac OS X is a Mac. Or are iBooks not Macs because they don't have Mac in the name?

Ya lets see what they are called when they go intel

[meelk]

I've been saying this for a LONG time. the intel transition is just step 1. I'm expecting a 5 year timeframe for "open osx", where you can build your own mac. Of course youll have to meet a definitive parts list from apple to make sure everything works, but itll just be intel mobo/processors and name brand videocards by then. What will be good about this transition to Apple, is they wont be seen to be dumping their core customer base. They can still sell macs with Apple quality, it will just allow people to go another route.
I can hear it now: "pseudo-mac".

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by meelk

What will be good about this transition to Apple, is they wont be seen to be dumping their core customer base. They can still sell macs with Apple quality, it will just allow people to go another route.

Another route that cuts into the company's profits. Again, Apple's primary source of revenue is hardware. Why would they want to make it easier for people not to buy their hardware? Do you also think they'll make Final Cut Pro and Logic open-source and freely downloadable but still allow people to buy boxed copies if they want?

[eevyl]

Apple is really going to split in OS, apps and hardware different companies: AppleSource, Claris and AppleOne. After years AppleOne will try to regain the "Apple Computer, Inc." name, and when they get it, AppleSource will be bought by a random Korean company that will turn AppleSource OS X into a Linux variant. And then out of nowhere Apple (formerly AppleOne) will switch to Windows.

On second thought, that reminds me of another tech soap opera mmm

[meelk]

Originally Posted by Chuckit

Another route that cuts into the company's profits. Again, Apple's primary source of revenue is hardware. Why would they want to make it easier for people not to buy their hardware? Do you also think they'll make Final Cut Pro and Logic open-source and freely downloadable but still allow people to buy boxed copies if they want?

you obviously misunderstood my "open osx" remark. perhaps you should read it all again.

oh, and btw: MS is a software company. Look at its cash horde vs Apples. You think Apple doesnt notice this? How much money is Apple actually making on hardware? Little of nothing? The iPod has been driving Apple for awhile now. You can try to classify the iPod into hardware if you want, but that would be ridiculous.

[meelk]

Originally Posted by Chuckit

Do you also think they'll make Final Cut Pro and Logic open-source and freely downloadable but still allow people to buy boxed copies if they want?

lol, even if thats what I HAD meant, which it was not: It works for linux.

[zerologic]

Originally Posted by Chuckit

Another route that cuts into the company's profits. Again, Apple's primary source of revenue is hardware

I love this argument... let's remember that in 5 years, *software* might be their primary source of revenue... much like the iPod/media galaxy is fast approaching that milestone now.

[Tyre MacAdmin]

I think it would do like th iPod. OS X is a cool OS... everybody hates Windows. Why would you go Windows when you can go OS X?

[Big Mac]

Originally Posted by meelk

How much money is Apple actually making on hardware? Little of nothing? The iPod has been driving Apple for awhile now. You can try to classify the iPod into hardware if you want, but that would be ridiculous.

You may want to look at the facts before making your assessment. Take a look at Q3 2005 results:
*Macs still constitute a substantially larger share of revenue than iPods. In Q3 2005, Apple sold $1.7B in Macs and $1.1B in iPods
*The iPod definitely is hardware.
*Although it brought in $241M in revenue on its own, the iTMS exists to sell iPods.

While the iPod is the growth engine that everyone on Wallstreet adores, the Mac is still the core of Apple's business. Moreover, hardware in general - Macs and iPods - is Apple's bread and butter.

[jasong]

If is doesn't have a Motorola 68000 processor, and I mean a 68000 - not a 68020, '030, or '040, a 68000 - it's not a Mac.

[meelk]

Originally Posted by Big Mac

You may want to look at the facts before making your assessment. Take a look at Q3 2005 results:
*Macs still constitute a substantially larger share of revenue than iPods. In Q3 2005, Apple sold $1.7B in Macs and $1.1B in iPods
*The iPod definitely is hardware.
*Although it brought in $241M in revenue on its own, the iTMS exists to sell iPods.

While the iPod is the growth engine that everyone on Wallstreet adores, the Mac is still the core of Apple's business. Moreover, hardware in general - Macs and iPods - is Apple's bread and butter.

This is the kind of post I'll be laughing at when Apple lets OSX out of its little concentration camp for the rest of the world to use. What was the expenditure on that 1.7B in macs btw? No doubt the *profit margin* on the ipods was tremendously higher based on parts cost/labor/etc.

[Love Calm Quiet]

Originally Posted by Salty

I think anything that runs Mac OS X is a Mac. Or are iBooks not Macs because they don't have Mac in the name?

Not so much.

How long do you think it would take apple to sue if someone started manufacturing and selling a PC that would run Mac OS X/Intel... and decided to call it a "Mac."

[P]

The webmonkey who wrote that is probably going to get fired for not using Apple-approved™ terms for their computers. See what youäve done by bring attention to one innoucous piece!

I'm quite certain that Apple isn't yet preparing to transition to yet another PC Vendor, because it doesn't fit with their "vision" of the the digital home and selling the whole package. They want to be in control of the whole shebang to guarantee a better experience than Wintel. If they want to start selling OS X to everyone, they don't need any preparation for that - well other than a few extra drivers on hand, perhaps. Just compile a version of the OS with the TPM stuff disabled and you're done. They want to see how well the current Macs do before they decide if they want to try that, and it's much too soon to see how well that works. What Apple would like is something like 15-20% market share all by itself. If it can get that, it doesn't need to license the OS to anyone. If they don't, then licensing might be an option, but the quote in the OP isn't a sign of that.

The quote bowwowman made was recited all over the 'net precisely because everyone realised what it portended. In the leaked internal email from IBM after the release of the G5 confirmed (please add capitals and asterixes yourself as you please) that Apple was considering an Intel Mac.

[Velocity211]

Apple would never make intel for PC, if it did, it would be the end of the world...

[Detrius]

Originally Posted by bowwowman

The tag line may mean NOTHING, but then again.......

A few years ago, at Macworld Keynote, Steve made the comment that "Once the transition to OS X is complete, we will have options.....lots of options", & then "I like options"

Nobody seemed to put any significance into that tag line either, and NOW look where we are

One of the original major features of OS X was that it separated the executable binary from the application resources (images, windows, etc...). We new from the VERY beginning of OS X that adopting OS X meant we would no longer be tied to the PPC platform--that Apple could release OS X to run on *multiple* platforms. No matter how many platforms they released, one application could Universally run on all of the machines.

[Big Mac]

Originally Posted by meelk

This is the kind of post I'll be laughing at when Apple lets OSX out of its little concentration camp for the rest of the world to use.

In case you forgot, I am concerned Apple will do just what I am predicting in this thread. In this case we just disagree about whether or not going that route is a good thing. In my first reply to you I was pointing out that Apple makes the predominant share of its revenue from hardware - the Mac and iPod. You suggested Apple could quickly transition to being a software outfit, which makes no sense given the financial makeup of the company. Apple is a definitely a hardware company; its software exists to sell hardware. That could change in the future, but it would be a very painful transition.

[jwoods]

I forsee Apple selling OS X for PC's ONLY if the hardware stops selling (aka NeXTStep for Intel). As long as the hardware is selling at acceptable levels.....ain't gonna happen.

It's a double edged sword. I think quite a few people would at least try out OS X on a PC platform (esp, if it was a live CD or a limited install [in days]) and some would switch.

For the long haul, people would go back to what they know (one word here.....GAMES....ie, windows).

[P]

Originally Posted by Detrius

One of the original major features of OS X was that it separated the executable binary from the application resources (images, windows, etc...). We new from the VERY beginning of OS X that adopting OS X meant we would no longer be tied to the PPC platform--that Apple could release OS X to run on *multiple* platforms. No matter how many platforms they released, one application could Universally run on all of the machines.

OS 9 also separated the code from the other resources. So did System 0.97, for that matter. They weren't in different FILES, but they were separated in a logical, consistent way. The difference with the OS X way is that it is compatible with all the stupid file systems and ancient network protocols of the world - which is a good thing, don't get me wrong, but no more separated than the OS 9 way.

[Matt S]

Originally Posted by tooki

Wrong assumption. I believed all along that Apple was developing OS X for Intel. And I know I'm not the only person who suspected it. It was definitely not "nobody".

tooki

It was in 1995 I obtained a copy of OpenStep for Intel which I installed and experimented with. Installation required a SCSI drive, compatible video (Matrox Millenium), and so on. Anyway, when I started using the Mac less than two years ago I marvelled at how the Mac OSX interface was so similar to OpenStep, from iconography, even the spinning beachball. The latest trend to go towards the ugly buttons (ie, Macmail in Tiger, yes I have updated with the Mail Stamp thingy) is a step in the wrong direction.

Point I'm making is that the port from PPC to Intel in MacOSX was already mostly done at the OS level; just the applications needed to be ported ...

[saddino]

Originally Posted by meelk

No doubt the *profit margin* on the ipods was tremendously higher based on parts cost/labor/etc.

Actually, you've got it reversed. Apple's gross margins on computer hardware have always been around 30%. iPod gross margins are at 20%. This is exactly why analysts are a bit worried: as iPod revenue becomes a larger share of Apple's earnings, Apple's average profit margins are going to decrease - which means that they will really need to offset their lower margins by increasing volume (read: market share) in order to continue growth.

[24klogos]

It makes sense, it "leaves the door open" in case Apple ever needed to market OSX to any other platforms. Just the way OSX was quietly developed, crossplatform even during the golden days of PPC - When you're that big and put your eggs on one basket (hardware wise), u make sure the baskets got a secret exit, and Apple knows it quite well.

[24klogos]

Originally Posted by jwoods

I forsee Apple selling OS X for PC's ONLY if the hardware stops selling (aka NeXTStep for Intel). As long as the hardware is selling at acceptable levels.....ain't gonna happen.

It's a double edged sword. I think quite a few people would at least try out OS X on a PC platform (esp, if it was a live CD or a limited install [in days]) and some would switch.

For the long haul, people would go back to what they know (one word here.....GAMES....ie, windows).

you know it. that is excactly what is going to happen. mark this gentleman's words.

[ApeInTheShell]

I object your honor. Big Mac is only telling us what he thinks will happen; speculation, rumors, and analysis based on past trends are hardly cause for concern. I see no evidence!

[24klogos]

Originally Posted by ApeInTheShell

I object your honor. Big Mac is only telling us what he thinks will happen; speculation, rumors, and analysis based on past trends are hardly cause for concern. I see no evidence!

thats the key to a successful underground marketing strategy, no evidence.

BUT still leaving the door open in case say, Intel macs don't meet their profit expectations and Apple is decided to just market the OS, really thats going to be the only diference between machines, and to some people, even current PPC users - would not justify the price if they could get, say a Dell and run the same thing - yeah they might hide it under the desk, but it would be the same thing.

Apple has made terrible marketing mistakes in the past, specially product oriented and they know better than anybody, that a quick, smooth exit "OSX has been living a secret life" to quote Jobs, is the way to go, when your market is as fast evolving and volatile as hardware & the software to make it sing a plan B, C or D is always under your sleeve. it's pure business.

[Chuckit]

Sure, Apple might go to an OS-only strategy when the hardware is making them less money than they would on software. And Canada might become a totalitarian, military nation when zombies take over the world.

[Binarymix]

I doubt Apple is planning on supporting any old PC. For one thing, with each new revision of OS X Intel, more and more kexts start disappearing which used to support older hardware and develpment platform hardware. All the newer kexts are just adding support for the newest Intel Mobo's.

For example, My PC's integrated graphics used to work and enable QE, now I have to run OS X in VESA Mode. New network drivers are also causing some 'hackintoshes' problems.

[24klogos]

Originally Posted by Chuckit

Sure, Apple might go to an OS-only strategy when the hardware is making them less money than they would on software. And Canada might become a totalitarian, military nation when zombies take over the world.

I agree with you. but i think it will happen to Mexico first, its too cold in Canada for zombies to spawn.

[ApeInTheShell]

It would be great if Apple released a commercial that pissed off the entire news media, technology industry, and Windows users. But that probably won't happen.