Cringely Predicts Apple to Ship OS X for Any PC

boosman writes "In his current column, and in a similar op-ed piece in The New York Times, Robert X. Cringely predicts that Apple 'will announce a product similar to Boot Camp to allow OS X to run on bog-standard 32-bit PC hardware.' I dissect why this is unthinkable and challenge Cringely to a public bet on the subject."

Comments

I think Cocoa apps on Win is more likely

[Psykechan]

I have to agree with this site that talks about Apple possibly resurrecting "Yellow Box" for Windows which would allow for running Cocoa (and possibly Carbon) apps under Windows after a paltry 150MB install. Sort of a sanctioned WINE for running OS X apps cross platform.

This would allow developers to continue developing Cocoa for Mac and have instant ports to Windows; no dual booting or emulation involved.

Re:More likely than Apple dropping OS X for Window

[jo7hs2]

You know, the funny thing is I was wondering if were weren't going to see the exact opposite of what Dvorak is predicting yesterday when pondering boot camp with the local Mac zealot. It struck me that Boot Camp might be the first step in a Microsoft purchase of the Apple OS, allowing Apple to concentrate on being a hardware company. With the delays and problems with their future OS, one can imagine Microsoft quitely purchasing Apple's OS line, or even just licensing it, rewiring the GUI to look like Windows. It would solve some of their security and stability problems, and chances are that they could pull it off without the average user noticing the change.

I think he has it backwards

[Cthefuture]

Much more likely that Apple will start selling hardware to run Windows. It will be marketed as a "high-end" Windows platform that is certified and all that jazz. The drivers and everything will be tested (or written) by Apple just like they do now for OS X so they system will function as a cohesive unit much like OS X + Apple hardware does now.

Re:More Likely: Windows OEM

[znu]

I think you've got it exactly backwards. Apple's move to Intel hardware, and especially its decision to use off-the-shelf Intel chipsets, demonstrates that Apple has decided to leave the heavy hardware engineering to someone else, and concentrate instead on software. OS X is the big thing Apple has that e.g. Dell doesn't. Pretty cases are nice, but not something on which to base a serious grab for market share.

If you look at how Apple is presenting Boot Camp, everything from the text of the press release to the design of the icon suggests Apple is positioning it as the new Classic; it's a tool to allow people to run their old apps while they transition to OS X. In other words, the shift here is that Apple is positioning OS X not just as an alternative to Windows, but as a successor.

So, why shouldn't Apple bundle Windows, then? After all, they bundled OS 9 with OS X, for use in the Classic environment. Well, I don't think there's much point in this case. Regular users are not going to be interested in dual booting; they can barely use one operating system. Two markets will take an interest: the enterprise market, and tech enthusiasts. In both of these markets, people don't really care if Windows is pre-installed, as they probably have copies kicking around already. As such there's no good reason for Apple to put itself in a position where it's relying on Microsoft for OEM copies of Windows.

Re:More likely than Apple dropping OS X for Window

[hey!]

The pundit game reminds me of a something I learned in college psychology class.

If you have an experiment where pushing button A in response to a flashing light gives you a reward 70% of the time, and pushing buton B 30%, college students will converge on a rate of pushing A of 70%, but rats will end up pushing A nearly 100% of the time.

This means that in a hundred trials, the rats get 70 treats, students 58.

Which illustrates the danger of trying to get predictions "right". If there is no downside, you shouldn't worry about guessing wrong occasionally, and go with the approach that maximizes your reward relative to effort, rather than attempting to be right 100% of the time which in many if not most cases is impossible.

So, if you're a pundit, an occasional wild stab in the dark doesn't hurt; if it doesn't come true, the downside is very minimal. But if it it does come true, you get to strut around like you've got a private channel to Gold almighty.

Re:They may have to

[ACME Septic]

I agree that right now it's mostly total PC geeks and not Apple's target market.

But that doesn't mean there aren't a lot of geeks out there that would buy an official version of Mac OS X that "just works."

There is an upside and a downside for Apple. Downside is it's harder to make OS X such a great experience when it's going on hardware they didn't build.

The upside, aside from any profit made from the sales, is that if they do a good enough job on it, you may be able to lure that person into buying an Apple computer the next time they need an upgrade.

My transition has been like this:

- Age 8 to 17, hardcore PC user and mac "hater"
- Age 18 to 23, hardcore PC user and ambivalent mac spectator
- Age 24-26, PC user and occasional Mac user (to help friends and family)
- Age 26-28, iPod owner several times over, and fan of Mac OS X technology (still PC user)
- Age 29, PowerMac G5 and Mac Mini user, and an Apple sticker on the back of my car.

THEY'VE WON.

I still program mostly on Windows systems, and still like Windows for some things, but it's safe to say I am getting fanatical about Apple.

The more you start using some of their stuff, the more you like it and want to use more of their stuff. Introducing Mac OS X that can run on a regular PC may be the taste that can push Apple of the edge.

You know, you get geeks using Mac OS X, like me, and next thing you know, your whole family is running it. This is what happened to me. Everyone now comes to me for advice on what to buy, and I tell them a Mac, every time. Mac mini if they want to save money, or a macbook, imac, or powermac if they can afford it.

Re:More likely than Apple dropping OS X for Window

[JavaLord]

Just about every professional should know when to leave their profession. john Dvorak should have left 10 years ago. He has been wrong on SO many things.

You mean like the Mac switch to intel a year early, which all the Mac geeks killed him for? Sure, he is right on some things, and wrong on others. His horrid reputation on slashdot however is a result of him not drinking the kool aid of slashdot group think.

If there is one thing his opinion columns always are, that is entertaining.

Re:That's telling him!

[Avatar 888]

Paul Thurrott actually makes a very similar argument to this in his recent review of Boot Camp.

One might wonder why Apple would create such a thing. After all, with barely 2 percent of the market for computer operating systems, should Apple be trying to win market share for Mac OS X and not offer a way for Mac users to run Windows? Not exactly. Unlike Microsoft, Apple doesn't actually make a lot of money directly from sales of its OS. Instead, Apple makes most of its money--even now, in the heady days of iPod supremacy--by selling computer hardware.

...

Now that Apple's operating system runs on Intel hardware, what's to stop the company from letting users install Mac OS X on any PC? As noted above, Apple actually makes much more money from hardware than it does from software, and given the rampant piracy in the PC market, it's likely that any move to open up Mac OS X like that would do little to help Apple's cause. Overall, Apple did the right thing: Under the current plan, it's likely that its hardware sales will go up. And as people discover Mac hardware, they could very well be tempted to consider using OS X as well.

Assuming that Thurrott is right with his loose facts regarding where Apple makes its profit, it's hard to argue really.

Of course they will

[peacefinder]

Apple will release OSX for generic PCs eventually. (PCs of some minimum specification, that is.) The question is simply when.

But it won't happen until one or the other of the following becomes true:
1) Apple PC hardware sales become insufficiently profitable to remain a (mostly) hardware company
or
2) Apple decides it is in its best interests to fight a head-to-head OS marketshare war with Microsoft
      Which won't happen until at least:
        2a) The minimum-spec PCs themselves have a very large market penetration. (I think minimum-spec will at least require EFI.)
      and
        2b) Microsoft's continued development of apps for OSX can be lost without serious strategic harm
      and
        2c) Microsoft interoperability protocols are sufficiently documented or openness is legally enforced such that MS would have serious trouble fighting dirty
      and
        2d) Apple is supremely confident that OSX can crush XP/Vista/Whatever in terms of user experience

Of these, (1) is clearly not the case. It seems almost certain that (2a) is not true. (2b) will be solved if Apple comes out with their own office suite, or once OpenOffice has a version truly native to OSX. (2c) is close, and (2d) is obviously here right now.

In all, probably not this year. If it doesn't happen by one month after Vista's release, then I think it'll be a long while yet.

(Hmmm... I wonder if the real reason 32-bit Vista does not support non-BIOS-emulating EFI is to reduce the number of "Vista-ready" PCs that are OSX-ready? Microsoft might well be fearful of this move and have already executed their countermeasure. Can Apple make a BIOS version of OSX? Would they? Will manufacturers generally support EFI if Microsoft doesn't require it?)

PS: Now that I've placed my bets, it's time to go RTFAs. :-)