If Apple releases OS X for PCs, how much would you pay?

[SoyCapitanSoyCapitan]

This subject has been debated in other threads but I want to make a poll to see how much people are willing up pay to install their favourite OS legally on a custom made PC workstation if Apple released such a version, possibly with serial number activation.

 

[keysofanxiety]

This subject has been debated in other threads but I want to make a poll to see how much people are willing up pay to install their favourite OS legally on a custom made PC workstation if Apple released such a version, possibly with serial number activation.

The reason most people here like OS X is because it's designed for specific hardware, so doesn't have a world of issues with drivers and things like that. If Apple were to release OS X on third-party computers, it would have to be for bespoke hardware otherwise it'll just have the same issues we hate on Windows. And releasing on bespoke hardware would basically mean hardware licensing agreements like they had in the '90s. I'm not talking about Hackintosh computers of course, because that has the same problem and you still can't install it on any old hardware.

So if you add an option for 'I don't want to see OS X on anything other than a Mac', that'll get my vote.

 

[VAGDesign]

I voted for free.
Reason: Since Apple started releasing for free it's OS, it would be unfair to charge it for PC users. Apple could arrange a certification to manufacturers something like "OS X Ready" so the people will buy a PC with ensured compatibility. From a move like this, Apple will get money from manufacturers who want to invest on this huge demand for certified hardware and compliance with it's OS.

Just an idea

 

[SoyCapitanSoyCapitan]

Obviously I'd want it for free like anyone would but if I'm willing to pay full price for Windows 10 on Bootcamp it would be hypocritical for me not to pay the same price to install OSX on workstation I build myself. So I voted for the same cost as Win Pro. Anyway, it would be a business expense so what's the damage.

 

[Pressure]

Apple won't go down that road again, where the endless clones nearly killed them off.

 

[SoyCapitanSoyCapitan]

Apple won't go down that road again, where the endless clones nearly killed them off.

We have already debated many times that you can compare Apple today with its many revenue streams with back then. Today Apple is basically difficult to distinguish from Microsoft. Many people who thought Apple would always remain the same failed in making predictions. They said Apple would never use Intel, never make a phone, never make convergence devices, never go into gaming again, never produce a stylus for the iPad, etc. And Steve Jobs himself was one of those naysayers.

 

[Pressure]

Well, all those things were right in the context when they were said. Circumstances change and so did the surrounding world.

Apple is still a hardware company primarily and foremost. That's where the fat margins are. The software is literally just icing on the cake.

Microsoft and Apple are nothing alike in that sense. They (Microsoft) is primarily a software company.

 

[SoyCapitanSoyCapitan]

Well, all those things were right in the context when they were said. Circumstances change and so did the surrounding world.

Apple is still a hardware company primarily and foremost. That's where the fat margins are. The software is literally just icing on the cake.

Microsoft and Apple are nothing alike in that sense. They (Microsoft) is primarily a software company.

I just think this is not correct at all. It's a POV stuck in the 90s.

Back on subject, I don't want this to be a regurgitated debate. It should only be about how much people would pay if the hypothetical scenario became a reality.

 

[Crazy Badger]

It's really not going to happen, so a price is irrelevant

 

[Fl0r!an]

I think Apple current way is already their best option: They don't really care about Hackintoshs (=> they don't officially support them, but they also don't do anything to make building them more difficult). This way, they don't have any additonal costs (which would be HUGE when they would support them officially - just imagine, 1 official support ticket per thread in a Hackintosh forum ) but gain a lot of paying AppStore customers.

Apple would have a long (expensive) way to go to achieve the OOB compatility Windows has gained over the years, I can't see this paying of.

 

[keysofanxiety]

We have already debated many times that you can compare Apple today with its many revenue streams with back then. Today Apple is basically difficult to distinguish from Microsoft. Many people who thought Apple would always remain the same failed in making predictions. They said Apple would never use Intel, never make a phone, never make convergence devices, never go into gaming again, never produce a stylus for the iPad, etc. And Steve Jobs himself was one of those naysayers.

I'm going to have to heavily disagree with this statement, especially what I've highlighted above.

Microsoft have always been a software company and their OS on so many bits of hardware nearly killed Apple. When Steve came back, he predominantly stuck to one phrase: "People who care about good software make their own hardware". To this day, Apple continue with this mentality.

The Apple mentality isn't "we will never make a phone", or "we will never use Intel", or "we will never go into gaming", or "we will never use a stylus". It is "we build our own software and hardware for the best user experience." Now if that means making a touchscreen phone, or changing processors, or going into gaming, then so be it. If that helps for the best user experience, then that's what they do.

Apple have been immensely successful in sticking with making their own stuff that can be controlled from the ground up. Your implication that Apple could potentially licence their own OS to other hardware manufacturers, simply because people have been wrong about Apple rumours before, is ludicrous.

 

[SoyCapitanSoyCapitan]

Apple have been immensely successful in sticking with making their own stuff that can be controlled from the ground up. Your implication that Apple could potentially licence their own OS to other hardware manufacturers, simply because people have been wrong about Apple rumours before, is ludicrous.

I didn't even say licence to other manfacturers. And it is still possible to control the hardware requirements within quite a narrow band. Ask any game developer.

Count how many software and hardware products Apple and Microsoft sell. You should forget this early 90s idea that one is a software company and one is hardware company. You are debating against a wall either way because this thread is only about speculating one thing - how much would someone pay?

 

[MacDawg]

Not only would I not pay for it, I wouldn't install it even if it was free
Personally, I like my Apple hardware

 

[Kapybarus]

200 euro for sure. I have my beast pc where I tried hackintosh but it was pain. Cant seel it and buy desktop mac, so i Have to wait till it dies

 

[mcnallym]

Not only would I not pay for it, I wouldn't install it even if it was free
Personally, I like my Apple hardware

Biggest reason I went Mac was to get away from the endless upgrade/driver/compatibility and trying to please all hardware that had with Windows. So unless OSX for PC only handles a small set of hardware might just as well deal with Windows.
If OSX for PC only handles "Certified Hardware" then you are no better off then now in reality.

 

[mcnallym]

Obviously I'd want it for free like anyone would but if I'm willing to pay full price for Windows 10 on Bootcamp it would be hypocritical for me not to pay the same price to install OSX on workstation I build myself. So I voted for the same cost as Win Pro. Anyway, it would be a business expense so what's the damage.

And is everyone here a business user. I'm not. All my Mac's are home/personal use no business use at all.

 

[linuxcooldude]

We have already debated many times that you can compare Apple today with its many revenue streams with back then. Today Apple is basically difficult to distinguish from Microsoft. Many people who thought Apple would always remain the same failed in making predictions. They said Apple would never use Intel, never make a phone, never make convergence devices, never go into gaming again, never produce a stylus for the iPad, etc. And Steve Jobs himself was one of those naysayers.

Apple & Microsofts core business models are much different. Not saying they are somewhat flexible. They are nothing alike. Apple always been into software/hardware integrated devices while Microsoft primarily software/services. I don't see how Apple licensing its OS would benefit them much at this point other then devaluing their own products.

 

[SoyCapitanSoyCapitan]

Apple & Microsofts core business models are much different. Not saying they are somewhat flexible. They are nothing alike. Apple always been into software/hardware integrated devices while Microsoft primarily software/services. I don't see how Apple licensing its OS would benefit them much at this point other then devaluing their own products.

Just take a look at how Windows 10 carries over across desktop, notebook, tablet, phone and Xbox now. They are becoming closer and closer as companies with near identical future strategies. They (including other parties) could even end up using the same backbone for artificial intelligence because all good AI systems will eventually be plugging in to the same databases and presenting the same information.

I still said nothing about Apple licensing their OS to another company. I wouldn't like that at all. The most feasible way it could happen is that Apple presents a list of hardware requirements that you need if you want to purchase and install OSX. The requirement could be OS X certified motherboards and a minimum Xeon processor. It means Apple makes their $200 bucks from the OS and even more money from peripherals and software sales, but doesn't have to waste time manufacturing and supporting the computer hardware.

 

[riviera74]

You know, I could probably build a better Mac that is more flexible than an iMac with similar specs if OSX were officially available for PC builders. The only problem with that is the same when issues come up as in Windows: where is the problem and how to resolve them. Apple's business model is simply not designed to accommodate the PC builder, and that is fine with me. Apple sells devices, not software.

Remember the MacOS clones of the mid-nineties? Utter garbage compared to the originals. Apple will never do that again. If you embrace Apple's vision, then you simply buy the whole package, whether it is an iMac, MB, MBA, MBP or any of their iDevices.

 

[H2SO4]

The reason most people here like OS X is because it's designed for specific hardware, so doesn't have a world of issues with drivers and things like that. If Apple were to release OS X on third-party computers, it would have to be for bespoke hardware otherwise it'll just have the same issues we hate on Windows. And releasing on bespoke hardware would basically mean hardware licensing agreements like they had in the '90s. I'm not talking about Hackintosh computers of course, because that has the same problem and you still can't install it on any old hardware.

So if you add an option for 'I don't want to see OS X on anything other than a Mac', that'll get my vote.

I think that’s pretty much a non issue. I don’t believe it would take a lot of work for Apple to make it almost universal.

 

[SoyCapitanSoyCapitan]

Remember the MacOS clones of the mid-nineties? Utter garbage compared to the originals.

Noooo, Power Computing (?) were making a **** load of money and selling quad CPU Macs. They produced the only Mac workstations that could compete against Irix and NT boxes. But the OS was let down by **** frameworks and cooperative multitasking that crashed too often.

 

[CapnDavey]

my first mac was a used power base 250 i liked it never gave me any trouble

 

[phrehdd]

I voted for free.
Reason: Since Apple started releasing for free it's OS, it would be unfair to charge it for PC users. Apple could arrange a certification to manufacturers something like "OS X Ready" so the people will buy a PC with ensured compatibility. From a move like this, Apple will get money from manufacturers who want to invest on this huge demand for certified hardware and compliance with it's OS.

Just an idea

It is free because the price is absorbed by the purchase of the Apple hardware (computers).

 

[Derived]

Not going to happen so it doesn't matter too much.

 

[mw360]

Why would Apple do this? It makes no sense. It would instantly crash the value of Macs. OSX machines would engage in an immediate race to the bottom and soon enough they'd all be plastic and icky. Nobody in the PC world is making Apple sized profits. Nicely designed aluminium alone isn't enough to command a price tags double the competition. The OSX exclusively drives up the Mac value.

And please don't say it would drive users to iCloud. iCloud revenue is nothing to Apple. iCloud exists to provide essential features to Apple users, and in return will periodly tell users their kit is too old and needs to be replaced. It's why their services are so sucky compared to those who make their living off it. It's not a genuine business, it's a hardware sales strategy. Free software like OSX and iOS exists also to drive users to iCloud for the same reason.