Slashdot Mirror
Dell We'd Sell Mac OS X
euphonaesthesia writes "In this article from Fortune, Dell CEO Michael Dell mentions that he would offer OS X to customers if Apple were so willing. The author speculates also that Apple would probably demand certain specifications. Having OS X would probably require a higher price point--this both Apple and Dell would probably like."
how many times have we heard about Dell and AMD?
Dell's just posturing to get better discounts from Microsoft.
Dell and Apple make their money selling pricey hardware, not the OS. (The last time Apple tried fooling around with clones, Umax took it in the shorts. )
So, it's not surprising Dell would offer to sell hardware. It would be surprising to see Apple take the offer.
P.S. The "text in image" thing still sucks donkey balls. (Maybe that should be my sig...)
A common thread I see running through all these conversations about the upcoming switch to Intel processors is an assumption that having an Intel automatically equates to PC Compatibility.
Back in the 1980s, there was a period of time where Macintoshs, Amigas, Ataris, and other computers all used the Motorola 68000 processor. Just because they had the same processor did not immediately mean that they could all run each others hardware. Sure, there were some emulators available, but they usually required that the user have, say, a copy of the Macintosh ROMs to put into a physical card, or something similar.
The BIOS needs to know how to address the disk. The bootstrap code can be the same from machine to machine, but without someone finding and feeding it to the CPU, you got nothing.
Did Jobs say the Mac was switching to intel Processors? Yes. Did he say Macintoshes would now boot on ye olde' compaq in the basement? Nope.
You're wrong.
The whole advantage to the Mac is that it's of a better quality, more stable, and has an Apple logo.
Sending Mac OS X to every computer manufacturer in the world would inhibit those three attributes.
The Apple brand is beyond hot - it's becoming part of culture. Market share is growing by leaps and bounds, and it's arguably just the beginning.
If you could sell the software and the hardware, why wouldn't you?
It's not holier tha thou. It's their product. That's like saying, "God, McDonalds is so snobby because they won't let Burger King offer their McNuggets. Come on already!"
Yes, the formula works for Microsoft, but I don't think it would work for Apple. It makes Apple just another PC company. The fact that they are truly innovating is the reason for their success.
The next comment I write will be ready soon, but subscribers can beat the rush and see it early!
Well, they already have: iCal, Mail, Pages, and Keynote. What's missing? A spreadsheet and a GUI to tie them all together. Yeah, they could finish that by 2006, which is when their x86 hardware hits the market. Coincidence?
Anyone see HP+iPod?
Dell *might* still make the case. Apple would require them to use reference designs for the internals, and Apple would require them to sell at a certain price.
Dell *might* be permitted to bundle extras with the computer, similar to the way you can get a ram upgrade or free printer from Mac Mall.
At Apple's prices, there's still quite a bit of room for profit for a manufacturer. Basically, Dell would manufacture Apples, and be permitted to sell it through their existing channels.
For example, many businesses have Dell accounts. They may not have Apple accounts. Of course Dell would love to sell Apples. Even if they pay a large premium to Apple, there is still a lot greater margin than with Windows PC products.
WhiteWolf666 an exBush supporter. All you new-school,compassionate,save the children Republicans can rot in hell
Seriously, don't they realize that selling cheaper sometimes means bigger profits?
Maybe (gasp) they care about something more than just 'bigger profits'? Like, oh say long term survival of the company? As I said above, Apple has a fanatical following for a reason, and a large part of that reason is their underlying philosophy toward producing complete systems that 'just work'. It's worked for them so far (how many times have we heard that Apple is 'almost dead'?), so why change their strategy now?
You are abosolutely correct, but most people just gloss over this point. To me, this is the key right here. This is why we can't have a generic OS X for intel. It would be installed on the most boring, busted beige PCs and two results would be seen:
1) OS X becomes unstable because of third-party drivers, etc, and Apple support becomes swamped, product image of 'stability' is tarnished.
2) The "mac experience" which includes both software and hardware is gone. To me, using my iMac and PowerBook are great experiences not just because of the OS, but because of the beautiful design, fit, and finish of the actual machines.
--- witty signature
Apple contracts Dell to build the new x86 Macs, and licenses Dell as a Mac reseller. Everything still has the Apple logo, but Dell gets a cut.
It would probably end up bearing both the Apple and Dell logos, and it would be very clear that you were getting a "Mac by Dell" rather than the real thing. Apple would also, of course, make them do all their own support. Granted, Apple would probably never even agree to anything like this, because of the risk of tarnishing their brand. There is a reason people buy PowerBooks instead of Inspirons or Latitudes, and it isn't just OSX. Everytime somebody has a problem with their "Mac by Dell," it would reflect just as badly on Mac as Dell, which would be unacceptable.
Unlike the switch to Intel, which is simply moving their brand in a different direction, letting Dell sell computers featuring OSX would actual water down their brand, which I don't think they are willing to do.
This could be really fascinating to see. Ultimately Dell and the like don't want to be selling commodity hardware. It takes a lot of resources for very little margin. They'd much rather focus on selling fashionable high end machines like their XPS systems.
So, OS X, could be sort of the bridge to getting the PC makers away from the commodity market. If you want a cheap bare bones PC, you get your wintel XP box. If you want something that's going to be high quality and last you a few years, you get yourself a macintel box.
The question that remains is whether Apple is willing to sacrifice some hardware sales to broaden the base of their OS support. I kinda doubt they will because their bread and butter really is making nice hardware. It's beneficial to them to have an exclusive lock on the apple faithful as far as that goes.
In the end, what I really hope for is being able to buy an Apple computer with OS X and be able to run my Windows games under that environment rather seamlessly. Then I can run OS X all the time, play my windows games when I want to, and then down the road hopefully mac games will come out and I can drop Windows all together.
This sig has been temporarily disconnected or is no longer in service
You're missing something which is what I was originally alluding to.
If OS X becomes popular in the general PC marketplace, Microsoft stands to lose Windows sales from those who buy OS X instead.
If they kill Office for OS X, a lot of businesses would write off OS X as an option and stay with Windows.
They would lose money from killing it, but in the long run if OS X becomes popular enough they could make more from the people that would be forced to stay on Windows without Mac Office.
The catch is that Dell doesn't truly intend on going through with OS X based systems. They are basically trying to get MS to lower their OS licensing prices.
Remember when we had something like that when Dell said that it will have AMD based systems?