If illegality can't convince you all, the fact that it's the ********* OS X experience ever concieved hopefully will. No graphics accelleration, instability, software updates that need to be cracked before you can use them. Pretty bad.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Mac OS X on a normal PC
- Thread starter danielbriggs
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
josh.thomas said:
If I come across as sarcastic it's because my Macbook experience has been extremely frustrating. I'm not looking for your pity either, simply showing that for many people (check the threads on this board) buying a Macbook has been a crapshoot with many losers.
You claim it's "fact" that Apple has better build quality - well I'd be willing to bet that whatever stats you can drag up will not include the Macbook line.
You seem to be confused, saying that I am comparing Apple to Windows and that you had Windows problems everyday - well I'm not comparing Apple to Windows. I love OSX but my Macbook has been an unreliable, failure prone disaster, hence my comment saying that I would like to install OSX on a reliable machine. This has nothing to do with windows. I don't have bootcamp or Parallels and have no use for Windows. In case you don't know it Apple subs out the actual contruction of the hardware to companies that also build PCs.
I am not Apple bashing either. Bashing would be making untrue statements or exaggerating - I am doing neither. You would rather that I don't air my experience in public? Too bad. IMO, the Macbook was rushed out the door before all the bugs were worked out and now I'm paying the price.
Your Rolls Royce analogy in not germaine. Anything can fail that's true, but we're talking about the equilvalent of the engine failing on a large number of cars in the first 2 months (sometimes weeks) of ownership. I would bet that even the worst car manufacturer does not have this happen as often as Apple has had logic boards fail.
Hmmmmm? People like me would be responsible for Apple failing - what just because I want to actually get a working computer for my money?
mattjgalloway said:
Could be worse you could have been through 4 of em like me for cosmetic faults alone and bought it on the day of release and you still don't have one....like me
Woah! Day of release and you still havn't got a good one?! That's baaaad. But how you only been through 4? Shipping must be VERY slow for you! I make that about a month each time!
mattjgalloway said:
One of the units took a month as it went to apple in ireland for QC control and its quality cosmetically alone was still shocking! So i sent that one back and then made a complaint to steve and recieved a call saying that Steve had viewed my website with the pictures and story personally and that one of the Vice presidents was personally taking on the case as he was shocked.
Over the next 48hrs after that call i had hundreds of views from apple and asustek computers and the factory in Taipai on my website logs. One apple ER person said 'I am genuinly shocked how high up apple you have got this issue'
GET IN!!!
flyguy451 said:
Overall, Apple do have better build quality. The MacBook line has, in some respects, been a disaster. Every company has its problems - but they have a brilliant track record, and their service is still very good, even if one of their new products may not be.
flyguy451 said:
My point is, Apple and Mac go hand in hand. The hardware, and the OS. Maybe I should have said Apple and Generic-PC makers. The Mac OS wouldn't be as stable on them - look at how Windows is.
flyguy451 said:
No. I wouldn't rather that. My point is, Apple have a very good reputation, and some people are very quick to dismiss that. They build excellent hardware most of the time, that runs an amazing OS. Installing it on other brands of machine would make it troublesome.
flyguy451 said:
No one forced you to buy it. First gen tech. is quite often buggy or not 'quite' right. But I understand the point you'll probably make about ''I expect it to work" and I would as well - but first gen stuff is more than likely going to suffer in terms or reliability. Its people, like you, who have bought these products, will help Apple iron out the kinks in future releases.
flyguy451 said:
My example wasn't amazing! A lot more care and safety aspects go into cars, no matter what the cost. These are mass produces notebooks, without 'safety' in mind (unless they go down Dells route and start blowing up!)
flyguy451 said:
No. Because you would no longer invest in Apple hardware - meaning the company could fold.
Lol! That is quality! How did you manage to reach Steve himself?!
I think he's a dude and everything as he's doing so well to fight off Microsoft and push them down a rung or two, but the usual Apple quality seems to have gone out the window here.
(Where's your website?)
I think he's a dude and everything as he's doing so well to fight off Microsoft and push them down a rung or two, but the usual Apple quality seems to have gone out the window here.
(Where's your website?)
mattjgalloway said:
Back to my original points - Apples OS should stick to Apple-hardware only, because, some MacBooks aside - they just work. The intergration between the OS and the machine is a lot better than Windows' approach of installing a basic, widely used OS on various forms on Hardware and hoping it all works problem free.
Apple can keep technical issues to a minimum, as they have input and vast knowledge of the system and what it runs.
Windows users do not have this benefit. If they did, by buying the Mac OS, Apple would fail - which is back to the original point of this thread.
mattjgalloway said:
http://www.davidjmoore.com/wordpress/be-cautious-when-buying-a-macbook/
His email address is read buy a team of apple peeps that redirect it to the relevant people. Mine got redirected to a Vice President in the UK but then was rapidly bounced straight back to the man himself. I don't know which VC is dealing with it but i am guessing its an american one located in the USA from comments i have picked up on when on the phone.
Liking the story you have there on your blog and I think it's apt that this forum has shortened the link to:
...wordpress...ing-a-macbook...
Quality.
Yes, the original post... well, I reckon if we were allowed to install Mac OS on a normal PC it'd be good to be honest. It might make people try Mac OS and then switch over to an actual Mac when they get their next PC.
...wordpress...ing-a-macbook...
Quality.
Yes, the original post... well, I reckon if we were allowed to install Mac OS on a normal PC it'd be good to be honest. It might make people try Mac OS and then switch over to an actual Mac when they get their next PC.
mattjgalloway said:
It's be nice if it was possible, but not necessarily supported to save Apple having the driver testing problems that MS has to deal with.
You could then choose a PC (or the components with known good drivers) that you know would work.
Apple would be able to dfferentiate themselves from the competition by their superior hardware design (a given) and supreme build quality (ahem).
emotion said:
But Apple makes its money from its Hardware. It people could obtain an the Mac OS, without the cost of the Apple computer - a lot of people looking for a cheap way to go Mac, or to try it out without spending an awful lot, or to partially-switch - would buy the OS.
Apple would loose millions.
josh.thomas said:
Ah yes but if Apple truly produced hardware that people desired (and I think they do) then they have nothing to fear by allowing the competition.
By controlling where their software runs it is not impossible that they might get investigated for controlling the market (like MS for leveraging WMP for example, here in Europe).
Mac OS X costs $129 and the physical materials cost $10 or less.
That's a margin over 1000%.
An iMac costs $2000 and the parts cost $1200. That's a margin of less than 50%.
Wooo I can do math and you evidently can't
That's a margin over 1000%.
An iMac costs $2000 and the parts cost $1200. That's a margin of less than 50%.
Wooo I can do math and you evidently can't
emotion said:
They aren't exactly 'big' when compared to Microsofts hold on the market - it would be too much of a risk to assume people would invest in the hardware just because it was Apple.
I know if I was a Windows user, I wouldn't first time around. I would try the OS, and then get a computer. But really, how many people would?
emotion said:
True. But, Apple isn't controlling where its software is run, its designed to run on Apple hardware, on particular processors.
If the software could run on any x86 right out of the box, and they had a statement of ''This cannot be installed on any machine other than an Apple" - eventhough, it could - thats controlling.
Correct me if I am wrong, but for the Mac OS to work properly, it needs Apple hardware - ie: take advantage of Front Row, iSight etc? They aren't 'restricting' it from running on Generic units, as it has to be modified/hacked to function (at a limited level) - does it not?
You forgot to include the costs of research and development in your costs for Mac OS X. Software engineers do not come cheap and you need plenty to build an OS like Mac OS X.Mr. Mister said:
Redo your math.
Mr. Mister said:
No need for sarcasm, is there? Childish idiot.
If Apple were to sell the OS, as you say - the sales of the hardware would probably sink dramatically.
This would affect third-party companies developing accessories for Apple hardware, as well as Apple developing their own products. People wouldn't need them as bad anymore.
Therefore, Apple as a computer company, would probably be nowhere near what is now in a few months (lost switchers, people who buy cheap Dell's and make them into 'Apples'), although 'Mac' as a brand could be huge.
josh.thomas said:
In a true free market they would have to open it up and they would survive or fail on their merits.
Not any more.
If the software could run on any x86 right out of the box, and they had a statement of ''This cannot be installed on any machine other than an Apple" - eventhough, it could - thats controlling.
Correct me if I am wrong, but for the Mac OS to work properly, it needs Apple hardware - ie: take advantage of Front Row, iSight etc? They aren't 'restricting' it from running on Generic units, as it has to be modified/hacked to function (at a limited level) - does it not?
The only thing that is different (well when all pcs eventually go efi) is the DRM chip that sits on the mac motherboard. That is it. No other differences. It's a PC.
I suspect Apple know this which is why there is a push to make Apple hardware as cheaply as possible (hence QC issues). Once they have the profit margins they need to compete with Dell and HP they can open up the market for macosx to other PC users and take a huge chunk of ipod-loving MS marketshare from MS themselves.
Apple rake in the cash as Vista fails. While still selling lots of nice looking macbooks (and other more expensive machines) to people looking for the genuine Apple/Macosx experience.
OK, so clearly I say some of this for the sake of healthy discussion but that is not an impossible scenario.
Mr. Mister said:
You're neglecting the constant NRE (non recurrent engineering) costs going into the OS though. The programmers cost a lot of money to keep the updates and patches coming. Once you get stable HW the cost to keep cranking it out is only materials (and cheap labor). The engineers move on to the next big thing. Motherboard/Logic board redesigns are few and far between while the OS is under constant revision/improvement. The materials themselves may be cheaper for the OS but the cost in development (which has to come from somewhere) is what would make the HW more profitable and why they haven't released the OS for generic PCs. You wouldn't have the low NRE HW to offset the high maintenance software.
Mr. Mister said:
That's not correct.
You don't just get a CD and slap a title "Mac OS X" on it, what about all the time and effort to develop it etc.
Just becasue you don't get a software developer in the box with it dosen't mean it should cost pocket money. (It would be cool if you did though!)
Anyway, nuff said.
Dan
josh.thomas said:
Thanks for your balanced reply. I actually agree with most of what you're saying and I am very pro-Apple. I would not say these things to my PC friends but expect a sympathetic ear amongst my fellow Mac users. I appreciate the design of my Macbook and when it works there is nothing better. I am, however, very frustrated and dissappointed with my Macbook experience. I do think it's important not to sugar-coat things. The Macbook was not ready for primetime, IMO, and I hope that the lesson is taken to heart in Cupertino.
Mr. Mister said:
From page 96 of the Apple Financial reports of 2005 a table gives net sales for 2005. For the section including:
' Includes sales of Apple-branded operating system, application software, third-party software,
AppleCare, and Internet services.'
As anyone will agree apple sells a lot of application software (its own gear) and a lot of third party software and apple care is not cheap... Dot mac is also included into the $1,091,000,000 figure quoted.
Net sales that year were $13,931,000,000 making the figure for the above services a mere 7.83% of the total. As I am sure you will agree the percentage for tiger out of that would be a lot lower than 7%. With a previous statement that was made that apples main income was from its hardware.... 45% of the total sales income was from hardware (backing up that claim) with 32.6% from ipods. The rest was music sales and misc.
I'm sure this has been pointed out many times before... but I'll take the time to do it again.flyguy451 said:
People are more prone to posting about issues they are having than posting testimonials about not having any problems at all. Boards like this one are here as a resource to help people with problems, so you are going to naturally see many posts by people with problems.
Hence, you can't make any accurate quality judgment based on the threads on a board like this.
Further, the MacBook and MacBook Pro lines have attracted a disproportionate number of Windows switchers... who are prone to having issues as they attempt to use their Mac like a Windows PC.
Then you would have been much better off buying one of the last generations of iBooks or PowerBooks, which had reached a great level of stability hardware wise.
Unlike software, which can be easily beta tested, hardware tends to require real world use to find any bugs. If you are someone who has been a long time user of Apple products, then you should know that the first rev of many of Apple's hardware products have had issues. These often range from hardware production issues to software (drivers) issues. So unless you had an uncontrollable urge to be the first on your block with an Intel based Mac... I don't see why you would have risked getting a MacBook.
Mac OS X is still new to Apple's Intel-based hardware. Apple's Intel-based hardware is new to Apple. This makes for a bad combination. And even if you are having actual hardware issues, a later version of Mac OS X will most likely make the current systems run much better once Apple has had the chance to see them running together in the real world.
But yeah, as Mr. Mister has already pointed out, Mac OS X on non-Apple hardware will be worse than on Apple hardware. And Apple will not be spending any time fixing the issues for non-Apple hardware like they are for their own hardware.
__________________
For the sake of argument lets work with these numbers... but we'll say Apple makes $100 on each copy of Mac OS X, and we'll also say that the average price for Apple hardware is $2000 and the average profit on that hardware is $800. Let us also put Apple's market share at 4% for this.Mr. Mister said:
Apple would need to sell 8 copies of Mac OS X for every Mac that isn't bought because someone put Mac OS X on another companies PC. If this cuts Apple's hardware business in half (dropping their new hardware market share to 2%) how much market share would Apple have to gain with Mac OS X on PCs to brake even?
Apple would have to have 16% market share (a total of 18% including the 2% from their own hardware sales) to make up for the loss of half their hardware sales.
And we are strictly talking about profits above and beyond what it cost Apple to make these things.
Now factor in the fact that Microsoft has pointed out that about 35% of Windows installations are pirated. Why would Apple get off any easier than Microsoft in this area?
So Apple would actually need to reach nearly 23% market share (or 25% total) to brake even. And that is only if they lose half their hardware business. If they dropped their hardware all together they would need about 50% market share to stay as profitable as they are right now.
Even if they could reach 10% market share (which they possibly could by dropping their hardware business and letting everyone just buy Mac OS X for any PC), that is about one fifth of what they are currently making at 4% market share restricting Mac OS X to Apple hardware.
So, does everyone see why Mac OS X on PC hardware is (from Apple's point of view) a really bad idea?
RacerX said:
I am a long time Apple customer (check my signature block) and I bought a Macbook because I needed a computer right now and couldn't wait for a rev D model. I understand and accept some usuability risk for being the early purchaser. ie. I can live with the the mooing and the staining. My beef is with the sudden repeated failure of the logic board. In any case, Apple has been good about fixing as necessary and I'm really just posting to vent my frustration. I do, however, stand by my assertion that the Macbook was rushed to market before adequate testing.