Will Apple ever let us legitimately build our own Macs?

[JacobMatthew]

First you have to download the Linux. A typical macintosh has processor Intel, Motherboard - Intel, Hard Drive - Toshiba, Optical Drive - Sony, RAM - Samsung, Video Card - ATI/Nvidia, Monitor - Samsung.

The OSX is the most advanced operating system. It is UNIX based operating system that contains graphical user interface. It runs on iPhone, iPOD touch, iPad, and in 2nd and 3rd generation apple TV.

 

[Angelo95210]

Today Apple is not saying a word about Hackintoshes but I think they kind of tolerate them. Otherwise they would have just done something to stop this. People with Hackintoshes (like me) have macbooks, ipods, ipads etc too. They are just an other kind of brand ambassadors.

I am currently upgrading my hackintosh to a quad core, I am so happy

 

[John T]

They want to control the entire experience, and to do that they NEED to do the hardware. One follows the other - they don't make hardware simply because they "want" to be a hardware company. It's merely a means to an end.

Apple's success has not been in generally controlling anything. They are innovators. Just think of the way, over the past decade, their products have and are changing the way people look at computers, mobile 'phones, tablets etc. That's innovation - not control.

 

[pdjudd]

I'm merely saying that the decisions apple are making are not based on any real desire with regards to hardware vs software at THAT level.

They want to control the entire experience, and to do that they NEED to do the hardware. One follows the other - they don't make hardware simply because they "want" to be a hardware company. It's merely a means to an end.

Hypothetically, if some "perfect" hardware was developed then apple might consider doing software only for it. But that hasn't happened (and likely never will) .

I disagree. Many of Apple's goals are to sell their hardware (which they think is superior). Look at the entire iTunes store - it's there to sell their devices, nobody buys from iTunes to load it on a Zune - Apple uses the ease of their software to get people to buy their hardware and they use their cheaper hardware to get people to look at and consider the pricier stuff (maybe).

Apple isn't going to get into a practice where they are going to compete with themselves - no matter what the other guys offer. They did that before and it didn't work out - they cannot compete with people who don't operate like them.

 

[Fishrrman]

I disagree with most of the postings here.

I suspect that at some point in the future, we will see something along the line of "OS X for PC's" sold by Apple.

I realize that it would be difficult or impossible for Apple to support software sold as such across the bewildering array of hardware marketed for PCs. However, it could be "bundled" with an approved motherboard (suitable for installation in a PC case) tested and known to work with OS X, with a recommended list of graphics cards, as well. Just assemble the rest yourself, and you should be good to go.

I see this as a way for Apple to retain the high-end content creation markets (folks who would normally be using Mac Pro's) in the event that they decide it isn't worth it to keep the Mac Pro in production. Hasn't there been speculation of this of late?

There will be replies to this post to the effect that "Apple has gone the clone route before, and it didn't work for them, was harmful to them". Correct, because when they tried cloning in the 1990's (I owned a couple of SuperMac clones), they discovered that the cloners could produce more powerful products at lower prices than Apple was willing to offer. That's basic economics -- the better product gets more sales.

But if Apple is indeed considering discontinuation of the Mac Pro, it will leave a hole in the product line that others can fill. Apple can choose to collect hardware and software license fees (probably substantial) while leaving the actual design R&D and production to others.

Apple has changed directions suddenly before. Only six+ years ago, there were rumors flying that Apple had been secretly developing a version of the Mac OS that ran on -Intel- processors! Outrageous, it seemed. And Apple RESOUNDINGLY DENIED the existence of any such OS.

Yet a year later, surprise, SURPRISE! Apple announced they were abandoning the PPC architecture and moving to the Intel platform. But even more astonishing, Apple revealed that THEY ALREADY HAD a version of the OS that was up and running on Intel, and made developer hardware platforms available, as well! There aren't many around here who personally remember Watergate, but it was the equivalent of Ron Ziegler going before the press and stating that all his previous comments were … "inoperative"…

OS X for PC's? Not guaranteed, but certainly possible….

 

[maflynn]

Nope, zero chance.

Their software has always been designed to drive the hardware sales. Why take away their stated goal for making money. Yeah, they are making a boat load of money on the app store, but that's because they've sold a lot of iPhones.

Apple is about controlling everything from start to finish, and its shown by going that route, they have made some pretty fantastic products. They start licensing the OS for other hardware, either for OEMs or consumers (to build their own) and they lose a major advantage.

 

[ucfgrad93]

Not a chance.

Agreed. I don't see this ever happening OP.

 

[r0k]

I disagree with most of the postings here.

I suspect that at some point in the future, we will see something along the line of "OS X for PC's" sold by Apple.

I realize that it would be difficult or impossible for Apple to support software sold as such across the bewildering array of hardware marketed for PCs. However, it could be "bundled" with an approved motherboard (suitable for installation in a PC case) tested and known to work with OS X, with a recommended list of graphics cards, as well. Just assemble the rest yourself, and you should be good to go.

I see this as a way for Apple to retain the high-end content creation markets (folks who would normally be using Mac Pro's) in the event that they decide it isn't worth it to keep the Mac Pro in production. Hasn't there been speculation of this of late?

There will be replies to this post to the effect that "Apple has gone the clone route before, and it didn't work for them, was harmful to them". Correct, because when they tried cloning in the 1990's (I owned a couple of SuperMac clones), they discovered that the cloners could produce more powerful products at lower prices than Apple was willing to offer. That's basic economics -- the better product gets more sales.

But if Apple is indeed considering discontinuation of the Mac Pro, it will leave a hole in the product line that others can fill. Apple can choose to collect hardware and software license fees (probably substantial) while leaving the actual design R&D and production to others.

Apple has changed directions suddenly before. Only six+ years ago, there were rumors flying that Apple had been secretly developing a version of the Mac OS that ran on -Intel- processors! Outrageous, it seemed. And Apple RESOUNDINGLY DENIED the existence of any such OS.

Yet a year later, surprise, SURPRISE! Apple announced they were abandoning the PPC architecture and moving to the Intel platform. But even more astonishing, Apple revealed that THEY ALREADY HAD a version of the OS that was up and running on Intel, and made developer hardware platforms available, as well! There aren't many around here who personally remember Watergate, but it was the equivalent of Ron Ziegler going before the press and stating that all his previous comments were … "inoperative"…

OS X for PC's? Not guaranteed, but certainly possible….

If somebody wants something that resembles OS X on their PC, I suggest Ubuntu / Macbuntu. It's a heck of a lot more stable than Windows but there's still some things missing. A few years ago, what would have been missing in such a setup? Mobile Me support. That's about it. And Mobile Me was never a huge success. But today there's more to lose. There's iCloud and Photostream. There's iMessage for OS X (coming with ML). As iOS and OSX continue to converge, there are more and more features users can't get anywhere but on Apple hardware and I'm sure that's the way Apple likes it.

As for Apple throwing in the towel on Mac Pro, isn't the Mac mini server encroaching on the territory originally covered by xserve and Mac Pro? A more upscale version of the Mac mini makes more sense than throwing open the floodgates to allow anybody with a screwdriver and an approved motherboard to throw together his own fully Apple supported OSX computer. And the price point of this throw together machine? The high end. Apple has shown they are willing to risk cannibalizing sales of Macs with lower cost iPads but to go the other way and allow users to build their own high end machines and run OS X? And the money for those high end components goes directly to Nvidia, Samsung, Asus and Intel without passing through Apple's bank account? I don't think so. The closest we will ever get to this is Apple's quiet "toleration" of the OSX 86 project. That's about it.

 

[roadbloc]

Yawn. This again? Never ever ever gonna happen ever. Buy one or Hackintosh or use an OS that isn't limited to what hardware it runs.

 

[ChazUK]

Wirelessly posted

Let me chime in with another "No".

I loved my hackintosh when I was using it and found it to be a very capable, expandable little OSX fueled computer but it wasn't something anyone could deal with.

The widely varying amount of hardware out there could be a headache to support and for compatibility.

It's far better for many end users today the way things are IMO.

 

[jackhdev]

I don't disagree with the fact thats where they make their money.

I'm merely saying that the decisions apple are making are not based on any real desire with regards to hardware vs software at THAT level.

They want to control the entire experience, and to do that they NEED to do the hardware. One follows the other - they don't make hardware simply because they "want" to be a hardware company. It's merely a means to an end.

Hypothetically, if some "perfect" hardware was developed then apple might consider doing software only for it. But that hasn't happened (and likely never will) .

Yes, but as you said, Apple wants to control the whole experience. Even if there was perfect hardware, Apple wouldn't use it unless they owned and made it. There are large positives and large negatives to all of this.

 

[KnightWRX]

Apple is not a hardware company.

Apple is not a software company.

Apple is what is called a systems vendor. They sell systems. Those systems are called Macs in one case. They are both hardware and software that is packaged together and sold as a whole.

Some of you guys might be a bit too young to remember, but Apple are not the only company out there to have been systems vendors rather than a pure hardware/software vendor. Commodore, IBM, SGI, DEC, Compaq (not their consumer PC line-up), Sun Microsystems, HP (with both their PA-RISC line-up and the Integrity line-up they have today) are all or have been systems vendors at one point or another in the industry's history.

Apple just happens to be the last of the consumer market systems vendor, most having moved to pure hardware OEMs bundled with Microsoft software.

 

[throAU]

But if Apple is indeed considering discontinuation of the Mac Pro, it will leave a hole in the product line that others can fill. Apple can choose to collect hardware and software license fees (probably substantial) while leaving the actual design R&D and production to others.

This is the thing. The mac pro will stick around.

I don't see it going anywhere. For all the bitching about it not being updated, seriously, what do people expect them to have put in it?

New Xeons are coming. Give them a little bit to build/certify the new motherboards and you'll see a new Mac Pro.

----------

Apple's success has not been in generally controlling anything. They are innovators. Just think of the way, over the past decade, their products have and are changing the way people look at computers, mobile 'phones, tablets etc. That's innovation - not control.

On the contrary - the iPod was successful due to the integrated iTunes. Control of the content.

The Mac is successful because of OS X - controlled where it will run - to run OS X you need a Mac. To do iphone/ipad development, you need OS X, and thus need a Mac. All the base hardware drivers are written/reviewed by apple - they can ensure that they work with all OS features (eg, sleep) before including them.

The iPhone and iPad are largely successful due to control of the app store - all software running on the device is certified (controlled) - and also media via iTunes again.


I'm not saying they don't innovate - but the whole reason apple gear works so well is because of the tight integration and apple-control of all components in the ecosystem. If they give up control of the hardware, they will lose that.

Control over the entire stack isn't a bad thing. It is working out quite well for apple the way things are.


Compare to Microsoft:

Windows has historically had huge stability problems due to drivers (third party out of MS control). Pretty much every system crash I have seen since 2001 on Windows has been either due to hardware failure (nothing the OS can do about that) or poor drivers (crash in display driver, or some other hardware driver that doesn't recover from hibernate properly). Thus they require driver signing on x64 now (control), to try and ensure that all x64 drivers are written properly via MS review before signing them.

Also - PC hardware is generally crap built down to a price (including the crappy drivers above) - hence, Microsoft has no way to promote windows as a premium product - they're at the mercy of third parties when it comes to both software (driver) and hardware quality.

 

[kona314]

Wirelessly posted

No.

 

[KnightWRX]

This is the thing. The mac pro will stick around.

I don't see it going anywhere.

Why not ? Apple is all about iOS and iOS devices nowadays. It's now their core business. Macs are a nice sideline that's presently profitable, but that's mostly thanks to the mobile computers, not the desktop ones as Apple has themselves pointed out on numerous occasions.

There's really nothing keep Apple in on the workstation market. If it comes to be a low margin business because of low volume, Apple will axe it like they axed their server business.

For all the bitching about it not being updated, seriously, what do people expect them to have put in it?

New Xeons are coming. Give them a little bit to build/certify the new motherboards and you'll see a new Mac Pro.

There's more to a Mac Pro then a CPU. Apple could have updated the base RAM, storage to more closely reflect the pricing. Added features like USB3 and other interconnects when they became available. Updated the GPU (now 2 whole generations behind current offerings).

There's plenty you can do without actually updating the processor generation to that the pricing more closely matches that of your competitors in the segment.

 

[throAU]

Apple doesn't do price changes between models though.

RAM? Pick how much you want? Yes, apple (still) over-charge for RAM, is this news to anyone?

USB 3 would require a third party chip and motherboard redesign + driver write, which is a waste of time as USB3 isn't a pro-type interface anyway - USB is mostly for crappy consumer garbage peripherals.

I agree, maybe they could have offered a better GPU, but if new Xeons are just around the corner, why re-tool/set up new supply arrangements for minimal actual gain?


Its just not the way apple operate - it's logistically a pain in the arse.

Sure the MBP recently got a video/cpu bump, but i would wager that there was ZERO design changes, just intel/amd supplied the next higher spec of chips for the same price.

A new GPU in the MBP would mean testing and certifying a new card, writing new firmware for said card, possibly new driver, etc.


I'm not saying there's necessarily nothing they could have done if they were willing to do a fair bit of re-design and using additional non-current apple supplier components - but the hardware available to do a major change without incorporating new suppliers (e.g., NEC) for the USB3 support chip is not yet available.

As soon as an intel chipset comes with USB3 you'll see it on macs - apple will need to write a chipset driver for the new chipset anyway, rather than screwing around with yet another supplier for a short term part they won't even need in a couple of months.


And anyway - I have USB 3 (NEC chip) on my work HP laptop. Its a pain in the arse, for the first 6 months + the driver support was flaky, the USB3 ports on the machine would not worth with my iPhone, etc. And for what? Some marginal speed improvement with USB hard drives, assuming i have a brand new USB3 capable caddy? Please...

I have no issue with apple waiting until a stable chipset/driver from intel is available before including features like that.

 

[joeshmoe2000]

Think BIOS

This is from if memory serves me the Popular Science article last year with regards to building our own Leopard Mac. They quote:

"And then, following the switch to Intel processors in 2006,Apple elected to go with a more modern BIOS-like system called the Extensible Firmware Interface (EFI) which isn't directly compatible with the legacy BIOS pre-loaded on almost all Intel-based PC motherboards. So even though the hardware inside your Mac Pro, from the Intel processor to the Nvidia graphics card, could be exactly the same as parts found inside a Windows PC, the two operating systems remain incompatible at the BIOS level. OS X is designed only for Apple-made EFI-based systems, so it won't install natively on your generic home-built PC."

So as much as many would like to build their own "easily" upgradeable 'puters Apple chose their hardware wisely. I guess if you could buy the Intel spec PC motherboards with of course the Apple configured firmware then it would be a lot easier than having to do the whole iBoot, MultiBeast, Chimera, Chameleon and other assorted tricks just to fool the OSX install. I say I guess because I am no expert.