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!!
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.
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.
Michael Dell is no longer CEO. He's chairman of the board. Kevin Rollins is CEO.
B) OSX would be easier to support (sorry, 'sa truth)
C) OSX has a truly superior interface (Linux has, well, an interface...)
D) OSX is cool (Linux is geeky).
Generally, bash is superior to python in those environments where python is not installed.
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.
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!
Yeah, given Dell's past advice to Steve Jobs I somehow don't think he'd go for it.
GCHQ Quantum Insert installed. If only our tongues were made of glass, how much more careful we would be when we speak
They already sell Linux on their servers, because enough customers want it that it makes sense. People want OS X, very few want Linux. If that ever changes, then Dell would offer desktop Linux.
Sometimes it's best to just let stupid people be stupid.
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.
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?
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.
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.
"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
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.
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!