It's about time someone sent Jobs to the "LOONIE BIN!"

[jefhatfield]

Ok you find me a computer you can legally install OSX on it that did not come with an Apple OS on it to start with.
I' waitng....
Oh you faile to find one because there are none to be found.

The only legal requirement to satifiy upgraded verson of XP is to have windows 98 or after. I believe you can even install upgrade verson of XP on a computer with no OS by providing a Key from one of the other OSes. (Not 100% sure on it and never tested it. It just not something commonly done) I do know for a fact I could do a clean install on another hard drive. All the XP cds contain the same code. Only differnect is what is installed.

i am an honest techie and when a person needs an os on the windows side, we opt for the full version if there is no os on the machine

you can get a fix/info/tweak on "some websites" and "some literature" which can make you get a full windows version from an upgrade or fool the key code but it's not like microsoft is charging 1000 dollars for their operating system...bill g's people have to make a living, too...but maybe bill g could stop with the money making already...somebody else has to finally be richest person on earth

 

[Temujin]

Sorry, marchcapital. This comes up a lot and it always gets shot down. And rightly so. Nice try, but BZZZZZZZZ.

No need to keep beating this dead horse.

101 posts later....

 

[Josh]

Some advice: You're never, ever, ever, ever, going to get a Mac fan to agree, even slightly, that Apple would be better off allowing OS X on any hardware.

No matter how unjust Apple's hardware prices are (face it: when it boils down, it's all about aesthetics - the hardware is equal now. Apple > Them no longer works, except in the look of the box).

To Mac addicts, it's not about how much better it would be if OS X was available on anything, and it doesn't matter that the only reason people buy the hardware is for the OS (again...it's the same stuff now. No one would pay $2000+ for Apple hardware if it didn't run OS X).

What matters to the zealots is that OS X does *not* run on everything, and that is all they want. They don't want every Dick and Jane running their 'elite' OS. The Mac faithful are a very trend-following group, and though the users differ, a lot of them share a feeling of superiority, trendiness, and uniqueness because they use something not everyone else has or can afford.

Mac fans not wanting OS X on everything has nothing to do with business, economics, etc (as the fact that people only buy the hardware for the software, not vice versa, contradicts that Apple is a hardware company); it's entirely about egotism and elitist zealotry.

And frankly, that's the saddest thing about it. Even worse, though everything above is entirely true and everyone knows it, not one of them will admit it.

After all, that just wouldn't be trendy and rebellious, now would it?

 

[yellow]

I have no problems with OS X on non-apple hardware.
I'm just saying it's not going to happen.

It has nothing to do with being a zealot or not, it has everything to do with money.

Face it.. if it COULD be done, don't you think it would have been done already?
Perhaps there's a reason that Apple tried to stay in the hardware/software game all these years?

 

[Josh]

It has nothing to do with being a zealot or not, it has everything to do with money.

It's been proven time and time again that Apple has larger profit margins in software than they do for hardware.

The cost of making/selling/shipping/etc software is far less than that of hardware, and their software yeilds a highter % of profit per item.

I know very, very, few peole who, if given the chance to run OS X on any computer they chose, would turn it down.

Considering the profit margins, and that OS X sales would sky-rocket if it was available for any hardware, their net revenue would far exceed what they are making now.

And, like all other companies, Apple *is* in the business of making money. They _will_ do what makes them the most money, not what makes them the trendiest.

That being said, it's a safe bet you'll see OS X on your neighbor's Dell within the next 10 years. I gaurantee it.

It has nothing do to do with whether or not it "could" be done. 3 years ago, these forums were filled with "OS X can't run on Intel it will never happen; the software isn't designed for it and it could never work."

It can and will happen. But you know how Apple/Steve Jobs is. They keep the aces up their sleeves.

 

[yellow]

That being said, it's a safe bet you'll see OS X on your neighbor's Dell within the next 10 years. I gaurantee it.

10 years, huh? Way to go out on a limb.

As I've said many times in this thread, I agree with that.. the switch will be SLOW, CAREFUL, and CALCULATED to do the least amount of damage financially and image-wise. Just giving up to Mike Dell is, IMO, none of those.

 

[Josh]

10 years, huh? Way to go out on a limb.

As I've said many times in this thread, I agree with that.. the switch will be SLOW, CAREFUL, and CALCULATED to do the least amount of damage financially and image-wise. Just giving up to Mike Dell is, IMO, none of those.

Well, think about it. With the transition from PPC --> Intel currently happening, Apple is not going to release OS X to everyone while the transition is still happening. The transition needs to fully complete and settle down before anything like that happens.

And I 100% agree that giving up to Mike Dell is not any of those, and I don't think this would be seen as giving up. It will be seen as a good move for Apple to dominate the computer front. They aren't going to do it with measely hardware sales. But if you get OS X on a high % of PC's that's more Apple in each home, more Apple in the world, and more oppertunity for them to take advantage of (in a good sense) the new, and much larger, customer base.

I think Apple is more friendly to Dell & MS than their PR folks would like us to think.

 

[menziep]

The Intel Transition was/is much smother than the one to POWERPC

Most transitions from 1998 have been a lot smother

* Steve is better for apple than ever

 

[andiwm2003]

......................................Mac fans not wanting OS X on everything has nothing to do with business, economics, etc (as the fact that people only buy the hardware for the software, not vice versa, contradicts that Apple is a hardware company); it's entirely about egotism and elitist zealotry.
..............................

strong words. i wouldn't mind os x running on an affordable dell or a ibm notebook (i like them). i just don't think apple can survive on software sales alone (hardware sales would go down a lot and with a 4% market share they won't sell enough software). therefore i believe they won't licence os x in the foreseeable future.

how that makes me egotistical and an elitist zealot i fail to understand......

 

[dr_lha]

It's been proven time and time again that Apple has larger profit margins in software than they do for hardware.

Hwaahtt???

Link please?

 

[Josh]

Hwaahtt???

Link please?

Although a link really isn't required since it should be obvious that software, which can be made once and sold an unlimted amount of times, yeilds higher margins than hardware which is very expensive to make and can only be sold once, and, software yeilding higher margins than hardware is not specific to Apple; that's a fact that affects the entire computer industry.

Hardware: Expensive to make, expensive to distribute/ship, only 1 sale per item created.
Software: Less expensive to make, very cheap to distribute/ship, unlimited sales per item created.

But, here is some good reading, anway:
http://news.zdnet.com/2100-9595_22-984157.html

In particular,

The self-evident reasons relate to software's remarkably high gross margins. With near-zero variable costs, software businesses offer the ultimate in scalability. Software businesses are simultaneously less-capital-intensive than hardware. This combination of low capital intensity and high gross margins, also leads to better valuations in the marketplace.

 

[dr_lha]

Although a link really isn't required since it should be obvious that software, which can be made once and sold an unlimted amount of times, yeilds higher margins than hardware which is very expensive to make and can only be sold once, and, software yeilding higher margins than hardware is not specific to Apple; that's a fact that affects the entire computer industry.

Although this may be obvious(?), what is not obvious is if Apple could make more profit as a software company than as a hardware company.

Hardware is expensive, and therefore even though percentage profits are smaller, the amount of the profit per unit is larger.

 

[Josh]

Although this may be obvious(?), what is not obvious is if Apple could make more profit as a software company than as a hardware company.

Hardware is expensive, and therefore even though percentage profits are smaller, the amount of the profit per unit is larger.

No, you're missing the point of the margins. While a raw look at just the money coming in from a single computer sale will show more money than that of a software sale, once you consider the cost of manufacturing that computer, that profit dwindles significantly, and software sale will show a MUCH higher profit.

Profit = the amount of the sale - the cost of making it. Profit is not equal to soley the amount of the sale.

It's also worth noting that if OS X was made available for everyone and Apple abandoned hardware, Apple's software sales would not only dwarf their current software sales, but the net software sales + net profit would be substantially higher. (Keep in mind: The software is driving the hardware sales. Apple hardware is purchased to obtain the software, not vice versa.)

Apple would not only be making more money in profit, they would be spending a much lower amount to make that profit, and their net gain would be a great deal higher.

 

[andiwm2003]

Although a link really isn't required since it should be obvious that software, which can be made once and sold an unlimted amount of times, yeilds higher margins than hardware which is very expensive to make and can only be sold once, and, software yeilding higher margins than hardware is not specific to Apple; that's a fact that affects the entire computer industry.

that is certainly true. but we're talking about apple. they don't sell nearly enough software in the moment to make up for a drop in hardware sales. they high margin is software is certainly a reason why we see apple releasing lots of software recently (ilife, iwork, aperture....).
i still doubt that apple could make it without the hardware sales (at the current time!).

also one thing that we should not forget. apple not only sells hard and software they also sell an image. like harley davidson. take away one part and you might lose the overall image of the company in the puplic.

 

[yellow]

I still don't see it.. you're assuming that there will be this mass of people who want to buy a PC with OS X.
There's no concrete proof of that. It's easy to say.. but without hard numbers, who would want to jump into that snake pit? It could just as easily backfire. Besides, I'm guessing the licensing fee Apple would want per OS X installation would be astronomical. I think there's a better chance of them licensing FairPlay first.

 

[andiwm2003]

another question:
once you abandon hardware and license os x there is no way back.

would you as a ceo of a billion dollar business take that chance right now?

you would have to be very sure that the new business model is better than what worked for the last 5 years quite nicely (looking at my stocks ).

 

[jefhatfield]

Although this may be obvious(?), what is not obvious is if Apple could make more profit as a software company than as a hardware company.

Hardware is expensive, and therefore even though percentage profits are smaller, the amount of the profit per unit is larger.

HE HE...lmao, did you take math in 4th grade?

if your logic is true then i should be out there and be able to go to a store and buy a microsoft laptop

i think there is nothing wrong with the obvious

PC users math:

1+0=1
1+1=2
1+2=3
etc

many macrumors members' math:

1+0=12
1+1=13 and as the ipod commercial, with BONO singing brilliantly shadows mr. jobs and many mac zealots, "1, 2, 3, 14!"

and btw...i am a longtime user of computers from apple inc and i was once a blind mac zealot and while i was usually a logical person most of the time (geeky asian math nerd ), i used to get so passionate while defending apple that i went into "the reality distortion field" and really believed all mac users could travel faster than the speed of light and actually predict, accurately, the comings and goings of sub atomic particles in quantum mechanics

sure, i am japanese american but i got so zealous i thought i was freakin guy kawasaki, ok?

...it was like a ten year orgasm so i didn't want to leave it...but when the honeymoon was all over and i realized that the mac was better, and maybe only slightly better, and a machine with problems like anything else...i became a normal human being again

so referring to another poster here, mac users, or many of them, may not be elitists or egotistical idiots at all, but just full on addicts and junkies living in a dream world

the flawed logic of mr. jobs, his followers, which may include some apple inc employees, and pure inability to use mathematical reason is why dell and microsoft are more known by the general public and much more pervasive in society

 

[milo]

After the release of Boot Camp, this thread seems just that much more stupid.

 

[dr_lha]

HE HE...lmao, did you take math in 4th grade?

Enough with the personal insults please. I guarantee I'm much smarter than you are.

 

[jefhatfield]

Enough with the personal insults please. I guarantee I'm much smarter than you are.

then use your freaking brain, dude!!

 

[dr_lha]

I still don't see it.. you're assuming that there will be this mass of people who want to buy a PC with OS X.
There's no concrete proof of that. It's easy to say.. but without hard numbers, who would want to jump into that snake pit? It could just as easily backfire. Besides, I'm guessing the licensing fee Apple would want per OS X installation would be astronomical. I think there's a better chance of them licensing FairPlay first.

Exactly.

Just because software can be a high margin business, doesn't mean its automatically a better business to be in than hardware. Otherwise why wouldn't GM just close their car plants and start just making onboard car software instead?

Apple are in the same boat, although their software is a high margin item, by far and away the majority of their profits come from selling hardware. People here expect them to give that up? For what - to go into competition with Microsoft. A bad move!

 

[mmmcheese]

...with BONO singing brilliantly shadows mr. jobs and many mac zealots, "1, 2, 3, 14!"
...

1, 2, 3, 14?

 

[jefhatfield]

1, 2, 3, 14?

from vertigo, the U2 song

 

[jefhatfield]

Exactly.

Just because software can be a high margin business, doesn't mean its automatically a better business to be in than hardware. Otherwise why wouldn't GM just close their car plants and start just making onboard car software instead?

Apple are in the same boat, although their software is a high margin item, by far and away the majority of their profits come from selling hardware. People here expect them to give that up? For what - to go into competition with Microsoft. A bad move!

apple is a highly regarded hardware and software company

perhaps the most famous quote attached to steve jobs is when he realized his big mistake was treating apple as a hardware company first, not a software company...WE, the mac users, could have been part of the 800 pound gorilla, we in a sense, could have been microsoft

margin is THE key in a business where your product is meant to sell in large numbers

if apple inc built space shuttles, then that would be an entirely different approach

could apple sell os x to pc vendors and make money? why not?

 

[marchcapital]

if pc users will pay $399.99CAD for Windows XP Professional Edition, why wouldnt they pay $299.99 or $349.99 for Mac OS X? i know i would if i could legally dual boot it, and xp on my pc.