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."
Hell is freezing over for the fourth time!!
... to offer GNU/Linux?
Chevy: "We'd love to sell Mercedes"
Apex: "We'd love to sell Marantz"
FP for that ass!
(-1, Raw and Uncut is the only way to read)
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Unless or until Apple has an Office killer. The second MS gets wind of an Apple plan to compete with them directly using the same vendors Microsoft Office for Mac is as dead as a doornail.
It will reveal how much Microsoft is in bed with computer manufacturers.
Why does Apple not realize that they would be doing themselves a favor if they didn't act like their product is 'holier than thou'? I mean, if it were priced below M$ and ran on x86 machines, it would eventually win.
Seriously, don't they realize that selling cheaper sometimes means bigger profits?
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.
-mkb
Am I missing something here? I would have thought one of the key reasons that OSX is so popular is its stability (lets put features like Dashboard to one side for a sec).. And part of the stability comes from the fact that OSX only needs to be developed for a limited subset of microprocessors and hardware architectures currently then surely once it had to become generic for Dell boxen this would mean the OS *might* be more unstable as a result?
The question is who of the big PC manufactures would not offer OSX if givin the opportunity?
You are all a bunch of idots.
how many times have we heard about Dell and AMD?
Dell's just posturing to get better discounts from Microsoft.
"We want Microsoft to provide us with cheaper copies of Windows XP, so we will threaten to switch to OS X but not actually do it."
They've done this before with switching to AMD--they've announced many time that they were "considering" it, but as soon as Intel lowered their prices, Dell backed off.
What am I missing?
The Slashdot grammar manual. Page 74, paragraph 13.
Michael Dell is no longer CEO. He's chairman of the board. Kevin Rollins is CEO.
Years ago, Michael Dell said he wanted to sell Apples... and it got misquoted as:
"I'd shut it down and give the money back to the shareholders."
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...)
Not what you're missing, but rather what the poster/editor missed.
I imagine it was to read:
Dell: We'd Sell Mac OS X
(and that's in would, as in will if Apple allows)
was that SO hard to figure out?
damn..i think i just bit a troll...strangely bitter it is...
This is the one part of the story that makes no sense. If Apple outright made part of the contract, written, spoken, or implied, that Dell cannot sell a machine lower than a certain price, they would be jumped upon by the EU and US quicker than you can say "unfair competition".
And you can bet that Apple is aware of this, as they've been creatively circumventing these laws for years. Early ads for the Apple II had an asterisk by the price with a disclaimer "from our lawyers" saying that you might be able to buy it cheaper than that. Later techniques included barring sellers from advertising prices lower than those Apple set, a practice that continues to today. Retailers can sell Apple computers for lower than Apple's declared prices, but if they do, they can't advertise those prices (hence Amazon will regularly have a message in the price box saying "Price too low to display. Add to your shopping card to find out how much it costs."
Dell cannot legally be required by Apple to set its prices for a product containing an Apple component to whatever Apple wishes. Dell's retailers cannot legally be required by Apple or Dell to set its prices for a product containing an Apple component to whatever Apple and Dell wishes. The best they'll do is continue with the advertising of prices ban. This may mean Dell doesn't get to bite the Apple. Or it may mean Apple has to be more flexible.
You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
IF Dell started selling (or hinted at selling) the Mac OS that ran on x86, would MS just stand by? Even thought Dell offers Linux with some boxes IIRC, I suspect they [MS] would try to ink Dell to some exclusive deal and give them a major price break on Windows and related software. I suspect they must already have some deal...this may be Dell's way of getting MS to sweeten the deal even more.
I think it would be great if Dell provided MS, Apple, and Linux OSes as choises, but I just can't see MS allowing this to go on without some sort of "intervention". It wold be even better if they also sold AMD based systems.
"Look Lois, the two symbols of the Republican Party: an elephant, and a fat white guy who is threatened by change."
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.
In the last few weeks we have witnessed the following:
-Macs moving to Intel microprocessors.
-Roger Waters reuniting with Pink Floyd.
-Michael Dell's desire to sell OS X.
Icicles are forming in hell, pigs are flying, etc. Pick your favorite trite cliche. Personally, I'm scared. I think it's time to stock the basement with canned foods.
Dell said "offer to our customers", in that in the option box for some PC's you could select OSX instead of Windows.
The result would be lower winXP pricing, to price OSX out of the market and lower bundling prices of office, and of course no more Office for Mac. This would help kill OSX on Dells for PC buyers.
But Mac buyers would still shop Dells against Macs, killing Mac HW sales or profit margins.
Yep, I am sure Steve J. is just waiting to get into a price war on two fronts...
I'm sure the zealots will mark me a troll but what will happen in reality if they do that is they will have to start writing support on their OS for more than just their own hardware. This means they cannot control quality anymore. When you start introducing the third party hardware and accompanying drivers, the stability of Mac OSX will get shaky and it will start to act more like Windows. Comparing Windows to OS X is apples and oranges right now, because Macs are more akin to video game consoles as far as the software/hardware mix is concerned. Seriously, if OS X came out for x86 what you'd have is basically yet another Linux/Unix distro. You'd have to wait around for the companies to decide they need to support their hardware on OS X with drivers and all of that. It would be the same kind of issues Linux has now for the most part, except for the decentralization problem.
"Dell should just liquidate the company and return the money to the shareholders..." - Jobs
And tomorrow the stock exchange will be the human race
So instead of selling Office for PC they sell Office:Mac - they make their money either way.
"Win treats sysadmins better than users. Mac treats users better than sysadmins. Linux treats everyone like sysadmins."
No, but the licence for the BIOS code or whatever that locks OSX to compatible hardware could be pricy enough to make the machines more expensive ;)
-nB
whois gawk date unzip strip find touch finger mount join nice man top fsck grep eject more yes exit umount sleep dump
In my experience, Dell gives my organization hardware lock-in for a specific model - for example, the Dell GX280s we ordered at the beginning of the year were identical to the ones we ordered at the end of the year. The exception would be hard drive brand, but I don't even get the same brand hard drives from one identical model Mac to another.
Besides, I can take a firewire drive with a Tiger install on it and boot everything from a G3 iMac to a DP 2 GHz G5 - OS X only loads the drivers it needs, so a few more wouldn't hurt. -Ryan
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
If your post is true, then please help me understand how Bose can price-fix their speakers. It is impossible to find Bose speakers for cheaper than their store prices. Why does the US allow this if Apple can't tell Dell, HP or whoever how much they can charge?
Oh, gee, I dunno...
Because Linux on the desktop is really unpleasant for most people, particularly novices? Even on Fedora with the default settings, you have to set your HTTP proxy in many different places. (Once in GConf, once in Mozilla, once for the RedHat Network, and god forbid you start Konqueror -- that's a separate setting too.)
Having worked for a few years to set up novices with Linux on the desktop, I can say it's got a ways to go. I'm getting tired of the kneejerk "THEY SHOULD RUN LEENOOKS" posts whenever anyone mentions OS X; it's demonstrative of someone who hasn't used both Linux and OS X for any period of time.
This Michael Dell? ("...the best thing that could be done with Apple would be to shut it down, liquidate its assets, and return the money to its shareholders")
It should be observed that Michael Dell has taken pot-shots at, belittle, and marginalize Apple at every turn, in every market, using every bit of FUD he and the top brass at Dell could muster. The rivalry is legendary. At first I thought he was just trying (bitterly) to tout his machines at the expense of another company.
Then Apple makes a significant hit with OS X, talks about running on Intel hardware, and now he's more than willing to swallow a little of his pride and share in Apple's good fortune. This reversal of his stance has opened my eyes. He's not actually bitterly opposed to Apple, he's just bitterly opposed to poverty and obscurity. He's a techno-whore.
You cannot truly appreciate Dilbert until you read it in the original Klingon.
I'd say Apple is more likely to team up with HP given their relationship over the iPod. HP's shown that it's more than willing to bend over backwards to please the almighty Apple and take it right up the rear even if it means selling someone else's product under the simple guise of being able to sell sticker packets to "customize" its skin to turn a profit from it.
Does anyone own an HP iPod anyway? I've never actually seen one with the HP logo on it. Apple all the way.
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.
Sez you. I don't mind that everyone's been in there. Everyone's been to Disneyland and it's still fun. I'm sure there's still plenty of fun to be found in Paris.
It's been reported here and elsewhere just about a hojillion times, but since you seem to be the last person on earth to get the message you do not need X11 to run OpenOffice on the Mac.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
"Having OS X would probably require a higher price point--this both Apple and Dell would probably like."
So the monopoly OS, Windows, which is supposed to cause price gouging, is actually cheaper than MacOS with identical hardware.
Vote for Pedro
Frankly not too bad. OS X is what Microsoft wanted Longhorn to be. Stability? Check. Security? Check. Gorgeous Eye Candy? Check. Plug something in and it just works? Check. Easy for granny to use? Check. Powerful enuf for your average Unix hack? Check. Apple is sitting on a ball breaker of an OS and they know it. I think Steve Jobs senses MS for all its recent Longhorn misfires is at its weakest (OS wise) in probably a good two decades. He may swear up and down he will never let OS X run on just any PC and that may be true but notice that still doesn't rule out an OS X rollout on specially branded PCs built by hand picked suppliers (like Dell). Provided Apple gets a reasonable cut of the profits it sounds feasible. They make up in volume what they lose in direct sales and still get to uphold the Sterling Apple Brand and reputation that goes with it.
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.
Is the article talking about ye old compaq in the basement? No. It is talkng about ye new Intel powered Mac.
Where is that "field of strawmen" mod tag when you need it?
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.
What's left, really? USB devices? Guess who has been doing USB longer, Intel or Mac? Hard drives? Well you don't go buy a "mac only" HD now do you? How about video cards? Maybe, but doubtful. Sound cards? Same. Parallel port, serial port? (who cares
The only major difference is motherboard and processor. That's one down.
BTW, the bios is only used for bootup. Once the OS is bootstrapped, it's pretty well ignored/bypassed.
There is no magic needed. Input devices, multimedia devices, storage devices, networking. It isn't that difficult. Could Dell realistically offer Mactel machines w/differing ram/hd/mediadrive/input device/accessories/cpu speed options if given the opportunity? Absolutely.
My Suburban burns less gasoline than your Prius.
Reminds me of the news a few weeks ago that Nike is no longer selling shoes to Sears. Why not? Because Sears bought Kmart, and Nike doesn't want to be sold at Kmart.
In this day and age where brand is king and marketing is above all else - that Apple, the BMW of computers, would be sold at Dell? Sorry Dell dude, you're not getting a Mac.
Apple is totally niche, and here's why:
If they switched to selling OSX, they may become competitive with M$. They may even keep getting relevant updates to M$ Office for Mac. But M$ and Apple would get into a price war that the hardware manufacturers would love, and M$ can simply wait Apple out, since M$ has a huge cash pile and ALSO makes money on every version of Mac Office.
If they ever wanted to compete on hardware alone (ha, ha), they'd run into a similar problem, in that Dell has made it a commodity business, and Dell, etc. have more money and current customers.
I think what will help is that Intel has access to mobile, integrated chipsets, and is motivated to push design forward. Also, I'm thinking they could return to a slate design, following M$ and copying them instead of vice versa. This is the sort of thing Apple should be good at, and Apple knows they can't coast on Ipods forever. And as we've seen with the Ipod, they can have success building accessories for PCs, which worked reasonably well for palmpilot, etc.
Oh, this should work well. Didn't Sony keep prices high on Betamax boxes after VHS appeared on the theory that the American consumer would pay more for quality just like the Japanses consumer?
Of course, Apple hasn't seemed to learn from any other history lessons (e.g. Osborne) either.
Locking people into hardware from only one manufacturer. How 1984 of them. Kind of forgot about that famous Superbowl commercial I guess.
"It's the height of ridiculousness to say for those 9 lines you get hundreds of millions."
With a little algebra, Apple can decide at what price point selling OS X for Dell-boxen is a good idea.
Since Apple has switched to generic PC hardware like AGP graphics cards and ATA drives, the processor change will leave only two significant differences betweena PC and a Mac:
(A) Industrial hardware design
(B) OS X
So if (C) is Components like ATA hard drives and AGP graphics that go in every PC or Mac, as well as overhead for sales, support, etc, the total cost of the Apple box is:
Mac Cost = A + B + C
Now currently, an OS X upgrade is $129 for an existing Mac user, so we can assume that B is somewhere north of $130. But if Apple priced OS X on a Dell as a $130 option, then the price of the Dell would be C + B (Components + OS X) which means the Apple would be overpriced by $A for its Industrial Design.
So Apple needs to price OS X for Dell at $E = A + B
I figure if a high end Dell cna be configured for about $400 less than a similar Mac, then $399 is a great price for an OS X + iLife + Xcode option for the Dell.
At $400 a pop, Apple will make a tidy profit on the notoriously love overhead software and really won't be canibalizing the Mac sales because they have effectively balanced the price so you have:
Cost of Mac = A + B + C Cost of Dell OS X = C + E where E = A + B = $399
I only came here to do two things; kick some ass, and drink some beer...looks like we're almost out of beer.
Notice how _every_ Dell web page reminds you that Dell recommends Windows XP. Like even if you want to just buy some flash or KVM cables or a monitor or something you feel like they are asking "would you like some XP with that?" Can't imagine that this behavior is voluntary on their part.
I know and Apple stock has done so poorly over the last few years, it is amazing they stick with that same old tired plan!
First, remember that Microsoft makes something like four times more from sales of Office than from Windows (it's true -- look it up).
Second, you need to know the value of the "a lot of" people that would switch if Office were not available in order to conclude one way or another.
Based on Office's higher profitability, if only 1/4 of the market decides to stay with the Mac even if MS stops selling Office for it, then MS would be losing money.
You're quite insane if you think Microsoft will sacrifice their operating system monopoly in order to possibly dominate the Office apps business. Just thought you'd like to know.
Moof.
Yes, the code is ugly. After all, it is over 10 years old now as it was originally written by Star Division. You can still see legacy stuff from StarOffice 4 in the CVS repository including OS/2 code :) It's been a double-edged sword. Because the program is "mature", it's got enough of a feature set that folks can start to consider it on the level of Microsoft Office (well, it's probably more like the old Lotus suite kind of level...ironic since IBM just replaced parts of Workplace with OpenOffice.org). On the other hand, because it's so old the code can get really messy and be a bear to deal with. Ever since 2001 it's been near a full time job just to keep the application compiling, and it's still ongoing with OOo 2.0. Parts of it are wholly undocumented and the original authors are long gone.
The interface itself is a larger issue. It's written in custom tools that are used by no other product, and there are hundreds of dialogs alone (perhaps thousands, I haven't counted). And nearly none of this interface meets Apple HIG since it was designed for Windows and Unix (which, as we know, has nearly no UI guidelines at all). Because of that, and also because of the sheer largesse of the interface itself, the only way I could see Apple using OOo would be through writing a "wrapper", that is, junking the existing interface and writing a new one.
Since Apple already has core rendering engines for word processing documents, presentations, and charts, it seems all they need is a spreadsheet engine and they'd already cover the stock OOo core. It'd probably be easier to just write the new wrapper around their existing components and add in the missing functionality (e.g. database, macros) than to wrestle with OOo. All the better for them, too, since I bet they already have a core that was written with Objective-C in mind...
ed
Apple would still have control over the hardware. I'm sure Dell could produce MacTel boxes that would satisfy Cupertino's equipment requirements.
Expanding OS X's install base would be a GOOD thing for existing Mac users: more drivers, more software, more everything (including, perhaps, viruses).
Expanding OS X's install base would improve Apple's research and development ROI. Good for stockholders, and eventually for consumers.
Expanding OS X's install base would be a very good thing for Windows users, who would have more opportunities to purchase increasingly price-competitive MacTels.
Michael Dell's out-loud thinking is entirely consistent with his signal last week that Dell is ready to launch a premium line of computer hardware.
I think Apple ought to do it. They've traditionally been a computer hardware vendor, with software used to sell the pretty boxes. But these times, they are a-changin'.
This is my post. There are many others like it. If you don't like what you read here, go try one of the others.
at least to the New York City department of Education. See the online catalog and notice the vendor.