Top Ten Apple Rumors of All Time

An anonymous reader writes "CNET have taken a look back at 30 years of Apple rumors during which we have witnessed Apple's 'rise, fall, and rise again, like a kind of technological Jesus Christ.' Some of the rumors are outrageous, and some came true. The list includes such treasures as the Apple-Nintendo merger, which the article calls 'utterly outlandish,' and the persistent rumor that Apple will release Mac OS X for PC — described as 'so counter-productive and financially damaging for Apple that we doubt the company has ever seriously considered it.' There is also mention of the iPhone, which CNET says is 'an elaborate hoax dreamed up by Steve Jobs to keep journalists busy.'"

Comments

Mac OS X for the PC

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually, the criticisms of this particular rumour were spot on. Apple would have to be insane to release Mac OS X for the PC.

The distinction people miss though, is that Apple didn't release Mac OS X for the PC. They just built new Macs around an Intel CPU. That's not the same thing as releasing Mac OS X for PCs.

Re:Mac OS X for the PC

[ArcherB]

Releasing OSX for the PC would allow Apple to compete with MS on MS's own level without hampering the end user with Apples expensive hardware requirements.

Re:Mac OS X for the PC

[jcr]

If they did it today, MS could kill Apple by suspending development of MS Office for the Mac. When Apple has a complete suite of business apps, then it's a different story.

-jcr

Re:Mac OS X for the PC

[krakelohm]

I think the Apple expensive hardware myth had been pretty much debunked. True Apple does not sell $300 PC's, but for comparative quality machines Apple is priced just right in my eyes.

Re:Mac OS X for the PC

[ArcherB]

If they did it today, MS could kill Apple by suspending development of MS Office for the Mac. When Apple has a complete suite of business apps, then it's a different story.

That would be true if Apple's primary target consumer was the business. Since Apple is targeting the home, all they need is a "good enough" office suite. Open Office should fit.

Re:Mac OS X for the PC

[ArcherB]

I think the Apple expensive hardware myth had been pretty much debunked. True Apple does not sell $300 PC's, but for comparative quality machines Apple is priced just right in my eyes.

Well, I should have pointed out that I don't buy expensive Dell hardware either. I roll my own. Maybe I should have said "proprietary" hardware.

Re:Mac OS X for the PC

[JavaSavant]

So long as MS were to make any effort to maintain compatibility, I might agree with you. Seeing that if Microsoft were to suspend Office development for the Mac, there is no reason to believe that they would then make any attempts to make the two office suites interoperable. Having a platform office suite isn't enough in today's day in age. It needs to be able to create documents that are readable by everyone.

Re:Mac OS X for the PC

[Anonymous Coward]

the persistent rumor that Apple will release Mac OS X for PC -- described as 'so counter-productive and financially damaging for Apple that we doubt the company has ever seriously considered it.'

Of course it would hurt Apple: they can only make money by forcing a monopoly on their hardware. Let's face it: if they offered OS X for any PC, it would be a disasterous flop in the marketplace.

The only reason Apple can make money is by forcing Apple customers to remain Apple customers. That's why they destroyed the businesses of anyone making "Apple Compatible" machines, and why they force people to pay over $150 for the kind of OS service packs which Microsoft has been giving away for free... for over a decade.

Windows- usable on almost any machine, and they don't lock you into one hardware vendor.
OS X- only useable on computers made by Apple, and you have no other alternative.

As usual, we see the hypocracy involved in the shrill, puling whine of the FOSS community, who absolutely loves Apple.
Apple: the darling brutal, law-breaking, document falsifying monopolist of the Slashdot community.

Re:Mac OS X for the PC

[ucblockhead]

You mean, the expensive hardware that Apple sells at a high profit margin?

Re:Mac OS X for the PC

[neimon]

Arg. Once and for all.

What's the consumer-grade weakness of Linux? Its inability to deal with consumer-grade brains and consumer-grade random collections of computer bits.

What does having your own hardware platform do? You know what damned video, CD and audio drivers to use, and you don't have to be a genius to set it up.

Put OSX on a PC and watch it fail WORSE than Windows because Microsoft has all that hardware vendor cooperation locked up.

It's as simple as this: People don't want to know how to run their computers. They just wanna push dah button. Vertical integration means you can control the entire user experience and make it consumer-grade.

Re:Mac OS X for the PC

[Bastian]

Releasing OSX for the PC would allow Apple to compete with MS on MS's own level without hampering the end user with Apples expensive hardware requirements.

That's true, but it's only a tiny, tiny little part of the truth. The full truth is that Apple is nowhere near being prepared for such a move and would have little to no chance of succeeding if they were to attempt to compete with Microsoft in the PC market. They could try, but it would be about as smart as me trying to best a lion in unarmed combat. Why is this?

Drivers
Application support
Microsoft's bundling deals with nearly every hardware manufacturer
Microsoft already having a massive headstart on the PC market (essentially 100%)

As well as an unknown number of other compatibility issues. For example, Apple includes lots of libraries that are heavily optimized for specific hardware, such as VecLib. Right now VecLib works with G3's, G4's, G5's, Core Duo, and Core 2 Duo, and only certain chipsets for each of those CPUs. I have no idea if VecLib would work on a Pentium III or a Celeron. I do know that if it doesn't work, it will in turn break a whole lot of OS X applications, including a large number of the ones I've written.

Also keep in mind that the first four issues all support each other. For example, Microsoft doesn't have to write drivers for every random piece of hardware that comes out for the PC market, because hardware manufacturers do that for them. For Apple to jumpstart OS X on the PC market, they would have to spend time and money getting a whole lot of hardware working, and I wouldn't be surprised if the cost of doing so is greater than all the money in Apple's coffers.

So drivers alone most likely renders OS X for PCs as something that just can't possibly happen outside of Apple critics' wet dreams. Add all the other issues on top of that and it's easy to see why CNet pointed out that the idea is so silly that it's doubtful that Apple has ever even given a moment's serious consideration to the idea.

Re:Mac OS X for the PC

[rolyatknarf]

"they force people to pay over $150 for the kind of OS service packs which Microsoft has been giving away for free..."

Here we go again. This always comes up. Can you please post links to documentation that supports that statement? Please show me where these Apple service packs are forced on Apple computer users. Just one time I would like someone to show me this is a fact.

Re:Mac OS X for the PC

[rucs_hack]

that would pitch them into a gui arms war that they would find hard to win, and the loss could cost them dearly.

Yes Apple have always had better stuff (or so I think), but microsoft have such a huge pot of cash to mis-inform/cajole potential buyers, that they wouldn't stand a chance in direct competition. Better to let things develop as they are, with Apples hardware getting an ever larger mindshare.

Re:Mac OS X for the PC

[Junior J. Junior III]

iWork</cough>

Re:Mac OS X for the PC

[14CharUsername]

Yeah, because Apple sure doesn't want people to buy their expensive hardware.

Re:Mac OS X for the PC

[spaeschke]

Considering that Mac desktops are pretty much just beige boxes nowadays, I don't understand why they won't sell their motherboards so people who refuse to pay their outrageous desktop prices (me) can roll their own. Hell, keep the motherboards priced at a healthy margin (say, $400), but just make them available. I'll Newegg all the other components myself and save a bundle. As it is, I'm a consumer who likes Apple, would love to have a dual booting Mac/Windows rig and is willing to pay a slight premium to get it. However, I won't pay the stupid amounts that Apple demands for their desktop systems when I know full well what a comparable PC system assembled myself costs. OSX is good, it's just not that good.

Why lose our business? They'd make a nice comfortable margin on a motherboard, make some money on me buying their OS, and better yet, get mindshare.

Re:Mac OS X for the PC

[ArcherB]

Of course, Apple would need stringent hardware requirements at first, but things would loosen up as time passes. Remember, there were not drivers for Win95 in '95, no drivers for Win2000 in 2000, and there are few drivers for Vista now.

I don't know enough about Apple coding to comment about VecLib or any other required libraries, but I see no reason why a software emulation couldn't take over (other than performance) until specific drivers could be written and applied as hardware detection warranted.

I never said it would be easy, but it would open OSX up to the other 95% of PC's out there. (PC meaning Personal Computer, not Wintel based machine). Hell, I'd buy it and dump MS in a heartbeat! It's those last few apps that's keeping me from doing so now.

Re:Mac OS X for the PC

[ArcherB]

You mean, the expensive hardware that Apple sells at a high profit margin?
Yeah, the hardware that suffers from economies of scale.

Besides, Microsoft seems to be doing OK without selling that high profit hardware. How does the MS profit margin compare to Apples?

Re:Mac OS X for the PC

[ArcherB]

that would pitch them into a gui arms war that they would find hard to win, and the loss could cost them dearly.

Yes Apple have always had better stuff (or so I think), but microsoft have such a huge pot of cash to mis-inform/cajole potential buyers, that they wouldn't stand a chance in direct competition. Better to let things develop as they are, with Apples hardware getting an ever larger mindshare.

It wouldn't be easy, but keep in mind that in the beginning, Apple was bigger than Microsoft. Compatibility is what allowed MS to leave everyone else in the dust. It's the only thing that Apple does not have over M$.

Re:Mac OS X for the PC

[Gordonjcp]

MS could kill Apple by suspending development of MS Office for the Mac

Actually, if MS killed off Office for the Mac, it wouldn't make a lot of difference. People use Macs for audio, video and graphics work, which you can't do in Windows.

Re:Mac OS X for the PC

[bjohnson]

I roll my own. Maybe I should have said "proprietary" hardware.

WTF dude, you fab your own processor and motherboards? Solder your own memory?

"You keep using that word...I do not think it means what you think it means..."

Re:Mac OS X for the PC

[king-manic]

Releasing OSX for the PC would allow Apple to compete with MS on MS's own level without hampering the end user with Apples expensive hardware requirements.

About 50% of the Apple advantage is the hardware and how it "just works". The majority of stability issues on a non malware/worm infested Windows Pc is due to poor drivers. Apple would be stupid to step into that mire.

Re:Mac OS X for the PC

[rucs_hack]

I think they had the right idea too. Life would be so much easier if the pc didn't have so many possible variations in hardware.

Alas, the real world doesn't work like that, or not since IBM released the pc spec they used for anyone to use.

My only problem with apple is the cost of their machines, and that just because I'm not overloaded with cash. Otherwise I'd own all macs. As it is I have to use many pc's for cluster work.

Re:Mac OS X for the PC

[king-manic]

Actually, if MS killed off Office for the Mac, it wouldn't make a lot of difference. People use Macs for audio, video and graphics work, which you can't do in Windows.

Actually the majority of the tools needed to do video/audio on a Mac have equivilents ont he PC. The Artistic types simply prefer the mac or need retraining to use a PC as efficiently. To them it's not worth it but there isn't a real reason for the difference, and hasn't been for some time. Some of the nice Max onyl tools do provide some reason but there are equivalents on the PC side.

Re:Mac OS X for the PC

[ComaVN]

audio, video and graphics work, which you can't do in Windows.

You can't be serious.

Re:Mac OS X for the PC

[ArcherB]

WTF dude, you fab your own processor and motherboards? Solder your own memory?

"You keep using that word...I do not think it means what you think it means..."

I use it meaning that I buy the parts I want and put them in the configuration I want. I do not let some engineer under pressure from marketing make those decisions for me. I use "roll my own" in the same way that I would roll my own cigarettes. I don't grow the "tobacco" and pulp wood for my own paper. I buy it all in a store in separate components and put it all together myself.

Re:Mac OS X for the PC

[masdog]

For everything Microsoft tried to break, though, OpenOffice developers could, and probably would, reverse engineer or develop workarounds. Consider Microsoft's own handling of the .doc format. They tried to introduce quirks between different versions of Word that would force people to upgrade to the newest version.

I believe Microsoft actually tried something like this once. Most OEM PCs, the ones you buy at Best Buy or Walmart anyway, would come with Microsoft Works. Works, for some unknown reason, wasn't compatible with Word. Word could open files from a variety of office suites, but it couldn't open a file from their lower-end suite. Even the converters Microsoft developed wouldn't work properly.

Of course, no one ever needed to do type a file in Works and print it off in Word. Except for those kids in high school (or college) who's printer wouldn't work at home.

Re:Mac OS X for the PC

[Anonymous Coward]

Releasing OSX for the PC would allow Apple to compete with MS

But Apple aren't in competition with Microsoft. They are in competition with Dell etc. Sure, they both develop operating systems, but that's Microsoft's core product, whereas Apple's core products are Macs, with OS X merely being a differentiator.

Re:Mac OS X for the PC

[jcr]

if MS killed off Office for the Mac, it wouldn't make a lot of difference.

Don't bet on it. I wish that were the case, but it's not.

-jcr

Re:Mac OS X for the PC

[Total_Wimp]

The reverse, however, is a very doable possibility. If Apple were to pre-load Widows on Macs, or even better, partner with a PC maker like Dell to load and sell, they could make a nice profit selling desirable, expensive hardware, get massive application and driver support, and Microsoft would actually be on their side.

Why partner? Apple fans would interpret it as a move away from OSX. They would be unhappy in a major way. If they ship the computers to Dell and Dell loads the OS, taking a nice percentage in the process, then Apple fans might not feel so bad about the situation.

It would be a great experiment. If the Apple hardware turned out to not be so popular with PC folks, they could pull out without pissing off too much in their customer base. But if they turn out to be popular? Lets just say that the iPod and iTunes are available to PC users for a reason. That reason is that there are a lot more PC users than Mac users, therefore they have the opportunity to make more money. By "more money," I mean "huge fucking mountains of cash that they could never hope to make off of the tiny Mac community."

As the guy said, the evidence shows that Apple is a hardware company with a nice OS thrown in for "free". But via Boot Camp, Apple has freely acknowledged that other OSs can run just fine on their hardware. They'd be fools to not capitalize on the Windows market for high end hardware, if it exists in enough numbers. Even with a small percentage of the Windows market, Apple could make many times what they do now.

BTW, the biggest argument I've heard against this boils down to "Steve loves OS X like his wife, children and America combined! And Microsoft is Evil! So is Dell!" He went to Intel. He released boot camp. He makes most of his money from music players. He's on the board of Disney. Apple is a business. If it makes business sense, they'll do it.

TW

Re:Mac OS X for the PC

[jcr]

Do you see a spreadsheet in iWork? Neither do I.

-jcr

Re:Mac OS X for the PC

[lseltzer]

That would be great for Mac users, but not so good for Apple. Remember one of the first things Steve Jobs did when he came back was to stop allowing 3rd parties to build Mac-compatible systems. He wants to control the hardware sale as well as the software.

Re:Mac OS X for the PC

[Joe The Dragon]

Not true apple hardware is still higher then pc $600 for a mini with laptop cpu, ram , and hd with a pos gma 950 video when for the same price you get a desktop with a real video and desktop parts.

With $2000 mac pro $300 to go from 1 gig 2 gigs of ram is big ripoff.

No head-less mid-end desktop.

Re:Mac OS X for the PC

[skahshah]

You're right ! Correction :

audio, video, graphics work and being serious, which you can't do in Windows.

Re:Mac OS X for the PC

[davester666]

Releasing OSX for the PC would allow Apple to compete with MS on MS's own level without hampering the end user with Apples expensive hardware requirements.

Except they wouldn't be operating on MS's level. There's a reason why nobody [significant] openly advertises PC's loaded with Linux or any other OS. And I can't imagine a significant portion of any market segment that would buy a second OS to replace the one that their PC came with. This business model has been tried before, and nobody has been able to make significant inroads.

Secondly, MS probably has more employees involved with writing drivers for all those wacky devices than Apple has on their entire payroll. When Joe End User tries installing the OS on his home-built box, and it doesn't support his built-in Ethernet, or audio chip, the guy will be way more likely to return the OS than try to buy add-on components that are supported.

Thirdly, this would be the fastest way for Apple to go from a billion-dollar company to a 100-million dollar company. Their current business model enables paying for support costs and developing new versions of the OS and hardware by a [approx.] 25-30% profit margin on their computers, amounting to $300-$1000 per unit. They can't exactly sell the OS as a 'consumer OS' to make that kind of money, while having to hire both more support staff for end-user problems AND more programmers to write those extra drivers. And don't forget those Shareholder lawsuits that will come because o all the lost value of the company...

Re:Mac OS X for the PC

[ceoyoyo]

Open Office is a near impossible sell to Windows users. OO is pretty much the opposite of everything Mac users expect in their software -- it's big, slow and unpolished.

Re:Mac OS X for the PC

[Mozk]

In my experience Macs have better color management than Windows environments, mostly due to Macs having a smaller set of hardware which it runs on. Switch the Mac's LCD with a CRT and it's even better. Perhaps color management isn't as important for audio work, but a lot of audio-related software is written for Mac OS, and it's sometimes difficult to find Windows equivalents that perform similarly. It took me a while to find something like Audio Hijack for Windows.

Macs do have some deficiencies (inefficiencies?), however. When working with many applications at once, say Photoshop, Bridge, InDesign, TextEdit, and Safari (among others), windows can get crowded, and the toolbars of one program may appear to belong to another. Maybe it's nothing bad for some, but to me it's a GUI usability problem. I find MDIs more easily usable, like the Windows version of Photoshop, for example. Exposé and the Dock remedy this somewhat, but overall it feels less efficient than Windows' approach with the taskbar and MDIs (not a spec, but most applications use them). The upcoming Leopard implementation of virtual desktops, called Spaces , seems like a viable alternative, or at least a step in the right direction.

Re:Mac OS X for the PC

[Anonymous Coward]

The real question is: Why would they want your business?

What is the upside to a "new" product line that:

(a) would have ridiculously small unit numbers
(b) require increased support costs (just in documentation and management alone)
(c) has a target market composed of cheap, bottom feeders like yourself

make some money on me buying their OS

Oh, yeah, and:

(d) has a target market who would more likely pirate their activation-free OS instead of paying for it. But you don't do that, I'm sure....

Re:Mac OS X for the PC

[JimBobJoe]

The distinction people miss though, is that Apple didn't release Mac OS X for the PC

On this note, one of the more fascinating rumors that I remember hearing (a lot actually) during the late 1990s when Apple didn't have an oar to paddle with--was that Apple would build the next Mac OS around the NT kernal.

In retrospect, I find it more plausible today that they would have/could have done that than I did then.

Re:Mac OS X for the PC

[Bastian]

Of course, Apple would need stringent hardware requirements at first, but things would loosen up as time passes. Remember, there were not drivers for Win95 in '95, no drivers for Win2000 in 2000, and there are few drivers for Vista now.

No offense, but your counter-example is extremely naive.

When new versions of Windows come out they include a compatibility layer that makes it possible to use drivers for older versions of Windows. Furthermore, lack of driver support isn't nearly as crippling for Windows because the vast majority of Windows sales comes from it being bundled with new hardware. It'd be much more apt to provide any other commercial PC OS out there - y'know, BeOS, OS/2, SuSE, stuff like that. There's a real example of how much of a barrier to adoption lack of drivers is.

Every successful OS manufacturer out there other than Microsoft gets around this by mostly only selling to businesses who are using it to build their own embedded systems anyway (QNX) or by bundling the OS with hardware (Apple, Sun, IBM, etc.), or by having incredibly low development costs so they don't really need to sell much of anything ot make a profit anyway (anything open source).

Every every company that has tried to sell a commercial desktop OS that runs on commodity PC hardware and was not Microsoft has failed. There is a reason for this. Apple is not a magical company. Nor are they stupid. History, as well as a cursory understanding of the issue, makes it obvious that a company would have to either have magic superpowers or be stupid to switch their OS to the general PC market out of anything but complete desperation.

Seriously, I'm sick of people talking about this asinine idea. And folks say Steve Jobs is surrounded by a relaity distortion field. Sheesh.

Re:Mac OS X for the PC

[mrchaotica]

iWork is big too -- on my iMac, it apparently takes up 568.2MB. The problem with OpenOffice is mostly the "unpolished" part, I think.

Re:Mac OS X for the PC

[soleblaze]

And the desktop will be desktop sized. It's not the market that the mini is after. Show me an ibm compatable the size of a mini that has the same power and is cheaper, and then you have an argument. Their ram prices, however are a bit crazy. Usually 1.5x to 2x the price of mid-high quality ram. getting about the same quality ram off the shelf would cost you $160 or so to go from 1gb to 2gb.

Re:Mac OS X for the PC

[DaggertipX]

The reason Jobs got rid of the 3rd party manufacturers is because it was cannibalizing their own sales. It almost put them out of business the first time, and the prospects look about the same if they entered that arena again. Please explain how Apple bankrupting themselves is good for Mac users.

Re:Mac OS X for the PC

[ceoyoyo]

That's tiny. Mine is about 2GB. But most of it is templates and examples. My copy of Aperture installs at well over 2GB but it's all tutorials and example files. Chuck all of that stuff and the app itself is about 25MB.

Now, that doesn't mean it takes up any less space on the average user's drive, but it does mean that when you actually go to use the program it works like a 25MB program and not a 2GB one. Whereas OO is so slow it's behaving like it's full couple-hundred-megabyte bulk.

I'd love a good alternative to Word. I try to use Pages for as much as I can, but I need a reference manager for most of the stuff I do and OO is actually worse than using Word!

Re:Mac OS X for the PC

[Anonymous Coward]

With $2000 mac pro $300 to go from 1 gig 2 gigs of ram is big ripoff.

You do realize that the Mac Pros use FBDIMM memory and not standard DIMMs, right? Granted, you CAN get FBDIMMs for cheaper than the Apple price, but here's the thing: there's NOTHING stopping you from doing that! You're not going to save too much though; Crucial.com lists 1GB FBDIMM's at around $260 last time I checked. There's a lot about the Mac Pro that isn't your standard desktop PC, but no one ever bothers looking at things like the actual archictecture -- all they see is "Hrm, looks like a Dell ... why the hell is it so expensive? Must just be lame."

Re:Mac OS X for the PC

[mybadluck22]

Mid-End?

Re:Mac OS X for the PC

[ChatHuant]

The reason Jobs got rid of the 3rd party manufacturers is because it was cannibalizing their own sales. It almost put them out of business the first time, and the prospects look about the same if they entered that arena again. Please explain how Apple bankrupting themselves is good for Mac users.

Ok, here are a few ways

• users would have choice (choice is good, remember?)
• competing companies will have a strong motivation to come up with innovation
• smaller companies will expand into vertical markets and narrower niches currently too small or specialized for Apple to care about
• competition will push prices down and that will increase the user base
• a larger user base will provide incentives for more companies to develop Mac software (games, anyone?) and hardware (drivers)
• Mac users won't be left high and dry if Apple fails.
• and maybe we won't get any more "I'm a Mac" "I'm a PC" ads (ok, that's a joke)

Good enough for a start?

Re:Mac OS X for the PC

[lostatredrock]

What kind of idiot would mod this informative? Please tell me that was a mistake.

Re:Mac OS X for the PC

[kosmosik]

> The distinction people miss though, is that Apple didn't
> release Mac OS X for the PC.

Well that depends on definition of a PC. There are few:

1. A PC is a Personal Computer which Macs always were. Just from the begining. With this definition Mac is and always was a PC.

2. A PC as an Intel/x86 clone - well now Mac *is* an Intel PC and can run Windows and other PC OSes - so it is a PC. Therefore Apple released Mac OS X PCs.

The point you was trying to make is that Apple makes Mac OS X for Apple-Branded-PCs only. :)

Re:Mac OS X for the PC

[Korin43]

Spreadsheets are lame, like that guy in the suit. Geez, don't you know anything about hip teen culture??

Re:Mac OS X for the PC

[poopdeville]

You're ignoring a simple fact that invalidates all your points. If Apple dies, OS X dies with it. If OS X dies, so does the hypothetical clone Mac market.

Re:Mac OS X for the PC

[Mozk]

It's true, hand-rolled computers have a more natural flavor than pre-packaged ones. But then again, if you go with the Dell brand, you don't even need a lighter; they come with self-ignition and everything! Just don't put them in your pocket...

Re:Mac OS X for the PC

[poopdeville]

Heh, the last OS X "service pack" brought us features Microsoft couldn't manage to incorporate into a new operating system.

Who cares if the OS X code bases are similar? They work well, and we get new features every cycle. Meanwhile, Microsoft works for nearly a decade to catch up and still fails. (The point release upgrades are $129, and are not mandatory.)

Please explain how Apple is in any way a monopolist. I see plenty of hardware vendors around: Sun, IBM, SGI, Dell, HP. Users have a choice. If they want OS X, they'll choose Apple. If they want AIX, they'll choose IBM. If they want the newest version of Solaris, they'll choose Sun. If they want Irix, they'll choose SGI. If they want to run Linux, they can choose any of these vendors.

Re:Mac OS X for the PC

[westlake]

If Apple were to pre-load Widows on Macs, or even better, partner with a PC maker like Dell to load and sell, they could make a nice profit selling desirable, expensive hardware, get massive application and driver support, and Microsoft would actually be on their side.

This assumes:

a) customers will jump at the chance to maintain two operating systems, software libraries, and skill sets.

b) customers will take equal delight in having to maintain hardware compatibility with both OSX and Vista.

c] that the direct seller or big box retailer will cheerfully take on the added pain and expense that dual-boot or virtualization would bring to service and support in the mass market

Re:Mac OS X for the PC

[ChatHuant]

You're ignoring a simple fact that invalidates all your points. If Apple dies, OS X dies with it. If OS X dies, so does the hypothetical clone Mac market.

Not at all; first, even if Apple fails, current OSX users would still be able to run their existing programs and get hardware and application support from their hardware vendor and the application developer.

Second, if Apple failed, OSX would be one of the major saleable assets - one of the clone manufacturers would buy it immediately. It's not unprecedented in the industry - a company develops an OS, then fails and the OS is purchased by somebody else. Look at for example at Be and NeXT. And if the buyer was a serious Mac clone maker users should get (almost) uninterrupted support.

And third, even if OSX died, the users and Mac clone vendors can switch to Linux, Windows or other operating systems running on their Mac compatibles. They would still have hardware support and would be able to upgrade or fix their computer when they need to. There will be a transition period, with users dual booting or using Parallels or some equivalent tool for OSX-only apps; all new Mac applications will target the new OS.

Wouldn't users be better off this way, rather than putting all their eggs in Apple's basket?

Re:Mac OS X for the PC

[adrianmonk]

The full truth is that Apple is nowhere near being prepared for such a move and would have little to no chance of succeeding if they were to attempt to compete with Microsoft in the PC market. They could try, but it would be about as smart as me trying to best a lion in unarmed combat. Why is this?

I would argue that Apple's chances of success are higher than you are estimating. BUT, I still agree with your conclusion that it might not be smart for Apple to do it. Let me explain.

Basically, I think Apple could put in a huge effort, the kind of effort that's so intense it can't be sustained for long. They could hire hundreds of people to write device drivers. They could make deals with hardware companies to produce OS X device drivers for all new (PC) hardware for N number of years. They could maybe even extend OS X so that it can use Windows drivers for certain things. And they could launch a massive effort to add Windows API compatibility layers (at the binary level) so that OS X could run the vast majority of Windows software (including games) as well as or better than Windows. Basically, they could do WINE but put orders of magnitude more resources into it, and give full hardware acceleration to games and other graphics. And they could keep all the benefits of the Mac. Basically, I am talking about making something that is a superset of Windows and easier to use at the same time. And of course, a marketing campaign on a scale that they've never attempted before.

I'm not sure if they have enough cash to do this, but I bet they could get financing if they did haven't enough and they wanted to go that route. And I think if they truly did all of this and were totally committed to it, they'd have good odds of taking over a significant chunk of the desktop operating systems market. They might have, say, a 75% chance of getting 25% or even 50% of the market within a couple of years, which would be a huge coup d'état.

But here's the thing: even if the odds of success are 75%, which is pretty high, that still means the odds of failure are 25%. And since it would require a total commitment, failure would be complete. To put it differently, if my odds are right, there is a 75% chance of unbelievable growth and a 25% chance of Apple being wiped completely off the map for good.

On the other hand, Apple has stayed in business for decades by doing basically what it is doing now, so the chances of utter destruction are quite small if it stays with more or less the status quo.

To summarize, I think it's totally possible, but also absolutely nothing other than a "bet the company" move, and Apple isn't a position where it needs to bet the company on anything, so from a business point of view, why do it?

Re:Mac OS X for the PC

[Total_Wimp]

I guess I wasn't clear. I'm not talking having both OSs, just Windows. It would be a Pure Windows OS sitting on top of pure Apple hardware. The market would be exactly the same consumers who currently purchase Windows computers from Dell or HP.

I know, a lot of Apple folk would consider this setup an abomination. But the truth is that Windows users don't really give a shit about OSX. If they did, they would just buy a Mac. Windows users want to use Windows, so selling them a Windows box is the best way to get their money. You don't gain anything by also giving them OSX and, as your post outlines, there's a heck of a lot to loose, including all the prospective customer who would be too confused to buy such a setup.

TW

Re:Mac OS X for the PC

[Anonymous Coward]

Releasing OSX for the PC would allow Apple to compete with MS on MS's own level without hampering the end user with Apples expensive hardware requirements. On the other hand, it would force Apple to compete with MS on MS's own level, without the high margins they get selling hardware.

Re:Mac OS X for the PC

[optilude]

You got it backwards. Apple are way too smart to release OS X for PCs.

I buy a Mac (happily, at a premium) because I know it works. Apple can guarantee it works because they control the full device, not just a half-assed OS or a lowest-bidder pile of components.

The moment they released OS X (legally) for any old PC, their brand image would plummet (OS X crashed with my home-built graphics card, those bastards!), their margins would fall (less margin on a disk of software than a shiny piece of metal) and they would forever lose almost all control over their perceived brand and full end-user experience.

The very fact that we are reading articles like this on the front page of Slashdot says a lot about Apple's marketing clout over the past two decades. They are not so stupid as to throw all that away (and try compete with Linux to boot).

Re:Mac OS X for the PC

[istewart]

They may well do it, but at the same time, they will make it just hard enough to use Windows for it to be annoying, and if people want it easy, they'll subtly recommend purchasing Parallels or VMware. That's what Boot Camp does. I have Windows installed, but I only use it for a couple games, and it's annoying to boot into Windows just for that. Under your idea, a few Windows PC customers may well buy an Apple primarily for Windows with OS X as an extra bonus, but Apple would stand to benefit if they could convince those users to switch over to OS X full time.

Some people are of the opinion that Apple is treating Windows like they treated OS 9 when OS X first came out, and that's a dead-on description. Releasing Windows with new Macs would be a carrot-and-stick approach to convincing Windows users to switch to OS X. Except in this case, the stick tastes better than the carrot.

Re:Mac OS X for the PC

[shawb]

Pages does seem to have some table functionality, although I have no idea how well featured it is. But Pages does look a lot easier to make something look good or even professional than Word, which fights you every step of the way. Although the video on Apple's site makes it look like there is an over-reliance on templates, which means anything you do will look just like anything else done in pages.

Re:Mac OS X for the PC

[Total_Wimp]

Wow. I'm amazed I got marked flaimbait. Not your fault, of course, but I can't help but be floored that posting this kind of material could be considered a flaim.

Anyway, I think I may have left off an important point. I'm not talking dual-boot, I'm talking about just windows with standard Mac hardware and perhaps the small concesion of putting two buttons on their laptops.

Mac laptops are the bomb. Every PC user I've ever seen look at one has been jealous. If that hardware had the Windows OS pre-insalled so no tech geeky, time consuming, scary to newbies OS load would be necessary, I think a lot of PC users would seriously consider it on their next notebook purchase.

Whether they'd actually buy it remains to be seen, but Apple has an excellent hardware story to tell and I personally think people would listen.

PC users are used to the same box, or worse, the same box with a different color and a slightly different facade. But Apple has completely redesigned the layout of the case for better airflow and quieter operation. On the laptop, it's thin and light and has a gorgeous display. It doesn't look or feel like the cheap plastic that PC manufacturers tend to use, even on their high-end boxes. These things have the potential to shake up an industry.

Why bother with OSX? PC users have not expressed a desire to use it in significant numbers. That's not a dig on Apple, just a statement of fact. If it was otherwise, Apple wouldn't have such a tiny market share. Why confuse potential customers. Just load Windows and tell them it's a 100% Windows box that they can run all of their favorite apps on. If they're not confused and they don't have anything they percieve as a downside, why not bennefit from the great hardware?

TW

Re:Mac OS X for the PC

[Anonymous Coward]

A PC as an Intel/x86 clone - well now Mac *is* an Intel PC

Yes, but that still doesn't mean that OS X was released for Intel PCs. It was released for particular Intel PCs, but not Intel PCs in general.

Re:Mac OS X for the PC

[jcr]

Pages does seem to have some table functionality, although I have no idea how well featured it is.

I use it. I like it. But, it's not a spreadsheet. It doesn't suffice for writing the financials for a business plan, or even for tracking my stocks.

-jcr

Rise/fall/rise

[sczimme]

"CNET have taken a look back at 30 years of Apple rumors during which we have witnessed Apple's 'rise, fall, and rise again, like a kind of technological Jesus Christ.'

Or, you know, like a yo-yo.

Re:Rise/fall/rise

[__aaclcg7560]

If it was a yo-yo running another popular OS, the string would break and the user dead from a virus infection.

Re:Rise/fall/rise

[Andrewkov]

like a kind of technological Jesus Christ.

When I saw this line, I wondered if Steve Jobs wrote the article.

Re:Rise/fall/rise

[M-G]

Yeah, but Jobs and Woz were probably both virgins at Apple's birth.

Re:Rise/fall/rise

[the_B0fh]

You know what - I'll gladly be a virgin to be the co-founder of Apple.

Re:Rise/fall/rise

[dangitman]

A holy yo-yo, that is.

Watch out, this could cause a schism with pastafarians and kibologists.

Re:Rise/fall/rise

[Anonymous Coward]

Let's get one thing straight: Apple is not Jesus.

Now, will you break the news to David Pogue, or shall I?

Re:Rise/fall/rise

[Arctic Fox]

Depending on the kind of prison he ends up in after forging those stock documents, you might be regretting that statement.

Plus you wouldn't be a virgin all that long.

At least not until the first shower anyway.

Like a kind of technological Jesus Christ

[Anonymous Coward]

He didn't play a lot of games either.

Re:Like a kind of technological Jesus Christ

[Alcibaides]

Are you kidding me? He played games we can only dream about. (At least until the PS8 comes out.)

Re:Like a kind of technological Jesus Christ

[shadow349]

He never has to worry about losing an important paper due to a power failure because:

Jesus saves.

And the list

[JayTech]

1. Apple to buy Nintendo 2. Mac OS for PC users 3. The return of Newton 4. Apple to buy BeOS 5. The secret OSX build 6. The Apple iPhone 7. iTunes as a record label 8. Widescreen Video iPod 9. 30TH anniversary Mac 10. Apple to buy Disney

Re:And the list

[JayTech]

Mod me n00b for not hitting "preview"... here's the list properly formatted:

1. Apple to buy Nintendo
2. Mac OS for PC users
3. The return of Newton
4. Apple to buy BeOS
5. The secret OSX build
6. The Apple iPhone
7. iTunes as a record label
8. Widescreen Video iPod
9. 30TH anniversary Mac
10. Apple to buy Disney

Personally, I would have chosen "Apple to buy Disney" to be the top pick being that there was a huge amount of buzz generated online and in the media, more so than any of the other rumors IMO.

Re:And the list

[CrazyTalk]

When I saw the "30th anniversary Mac", I did some quick math - Mac came out in 1984, plus 30 years equals 2014 - it didn't make sense until I realized they meant the 30th anniversary of APPLE. In which case, the 30th anniversary computer should be a new version of the Apple ][ - now THAT would be cool. (OK technically the Apple 1, but that would be kind of silly)

Re:And the list

[Malfourmed]

The return of Newton

The Newton will return ... as the iSaac!

Re:And the list

[BlueStraggler]

It would take balls to name anything the iSaac.

Re:And the list

[Malfourmed]

That would be the model for French writers: ballSaac

Re:And the list

[Anonymous Coward]

I'd put it right below the Wii.

Mixed Metaphor

[Tackhead]

> CNET have taken a look back at 30 years of Apple rumors during which we have witnessed Apple's 'rise, fall, and rise again, like a kind of technological Jesus Christ.

...or toilet seat, yo-yo, and Windows server, for that matter.

Which reminds me of an ancient Minbari textfile I found once.

"We are Insanely Grey.
We stand between the candle and the flame.
The darkness and the light.
The marketroid and the engineer.
Between the Jobs and the Woz."

Re:Mixed Metaphor

[WilliamSChips]

Wait, an ancient Minbari textfile in English? Shouldn't it be in Minbari, or am I missing something?

Re:Mixed Metaphor

[Knara]

Though attempting to avoid spoilers for Babylon 5 may be outdated at this point, I'll just point out that if the term "ancient" means the standard Minbari "A thousand years ago when Valen came", then it's entirely possible that the text could be in English, given that Valen knew English (or, at least, Earth Standard).

Re:Mixed Metaphor

[WilliamSChips]

Okay, so time travel. Got it.

iPhone

[sgt.greywar]

The iPhone meme is my favorite here. Despite the fact that Cisco owns the rights to iPhone and has for years even Slashdot has people who simply refuse to believe. I actually own an "iPhone" from and it ain't Apple folks. Never will be either. Its just a Skype phone.

Re:iPhone

[ubergenius]

When people refer to "iPhone", what they basically mean is an Apple phone. The name clearly won't be "iPhone" as another company owns the copyright on that name. However, that does not mean that Apple will not come out with a phone that will compete in the mobile market.

Now, it is my personal belief that they will not be doing this, for various reasons, but just because someone refers to an "iPhone" doesn't make them non-believers in the existing copyrights, but rather showing laziness, in that it is easier to call it an iPhone than to say "Apple created cellular phone".

Re:iPhone

[sgt.greywar]

Sometimes that is true but looking back through Slash you will find that many of the "stories" about the release of an Apple phone actually are sparked by the new release of an actual Cisco iPhone product that Apple fanbois leapt upon with the breathless credulity of a Myspacer forwarding to their first chain letter.

Re:iPhone

[Dunbal]

The name clearly won't be "iPhone" as another company owns the copyright on that name.

      Interesting how, due to the now draconian copyright laws, people are trying to copyright things that really are only covered by trademarks...

Re:iPhone

[wwiiol_toofless]

That's why they'll call it an "iPhod". Unless I get the rights first. *calls lawyer*

yet more 'technologial jesus' jokes

[192939495969798999]

technological Jesus's mac doesn't crash. Of course, the miracle is that neither does his windows PC!

technological Jesus downloads just 1 song onto his iPod, and 500 people can listen to it simultaneously.

technological Jesus just has to touch a windows PC, and it turns into a mac.

Re:yet more 'technologial jesus' jokes

[WilliamSChips]

And when he touches the Mac, it turns into a Linux computer.

Re:yet more 'technologial jesus' jokes

[Oliver Defacszio]

And I forgive him, for he know not what he doth.

Re:And the list (Formatted)

[zcubed]

1. Apple to buy Nintendo
2. Mac OS for PC users
3. The return of Newton
4. Apple to buy BeOS
5. The secret OSX build
6. The Apple iPhone
7. iTunes as a record label
8. Widescreen Video iPod
9. 30TH anniversary Mac
10. Apple to buy Disney

Rhapsody OS DR2 intel

[Anonymous Coward]

I've used Rhapsody OS DR2 intel on a couple of generic PC's...not the best experience but it booted and responded, started apps and stuff..

m10

Re:Rhapsody OS DR2 intel

[Anonymous Coward]

You know, I got Windows XP to boot on a couple of generic PC's too. Oh wait, XP isn't OSX. Well, Rhapsody wasn't OSX either, it was NextSTEP for Intel rebranded.

Caught up on names

[Bastian]

The focus of the rumor is not the name iPhone, that's just the popular name for the rumor because Apple prefixes everything with a lowercase I. The point of the rumor is the idea that Apple might make a cell phone. It'd be essentially the same rumor whether it's called the iCell, the MacPhone, the PhoneBook Pro, or even if the phone were going to be called the iChat and Apple's instant messaging client were going to just be renamed Bonjour AV or something.

Too Literal

[SuperKendall]

I actually own an "iPhone" from and it ain't Apple folks.

Yes we all know Cisco owns the 'iPhone" trademark.

However it's just as obvious Apple CAN release a phone and name it something else. The name "iPhone" is simply symbolic of a phone from Apple that can also work with the same data an iPod works with and probably have a similar interface. You are being way to literal in claiming that just because Cisco has released a phone apple cannot because one name in the vast universe of possible names is now taken...

That said I'm only about 50% sure Apple will really release a phone, and it's not just a hoax as CNet is claiming. Personally I would like a more fully featured phone that could work on an MVNO network just as Virgin Mobile phones do today (no virgin mobile phone supports Bluetooth, for example), and also a phone that synchronized better with a computer and was more seamless to use as a data connection (something you cannot get with TMobile pay as you go plans even if the phone supports it). So there is a lot Apple could bring to a phone, I just don't know if they really want to enter that market.

Re:Too Literal

[Hawthorne01]

I think with new Apple products, it comes down to this:

If it's a gadget that Steve Jobs uses in his everyday life, he wants it to be better. And if it makes sense for Apple to build it, they do.

Steve uses computers - Apple improves the Mac line and OS X to where they're the most stylish, well-designed computers on the market.

Steve listens to music - Apple comes out with the iPod

Steve doesn't play video games - I'm an unabashed Mac fanboy, but I gotta admit that OS X just blows for game selection.

Steve uses a cellphone - Hmmm..... Now here's where it gets interesting. Is there a cell phone on the market today that even approaches the power, design and ease of use of a Mac or an iPod? Obviously, no. Now, is Steve willing to shake up the cell phone industry like he did the music biz?

Aye, there's the rub.

Re:Too Literal

[Bastard of Subhumani]

The name "iPhone" is simply symbolic of a phone from Apple that can also work with the same data an iPod works with and probably have a similar interface

I'd so totally enjoy entering phone numbers - or even better, SMS messages - with that little wheel thingy.

Re:Too Literal

[Lorkki]

Is there a cell phone on the market today that even approaches the power, design and ease of use of a Mac or an iPod? Obviously, no.

The current line of phones are already crashing and locking up on occasion - all we need now is less colour and one or two gimmick features and we're pretty much there.

Re:Too Literal

[Lorkki]

That moderation certainly didn't come unexpected, what with the general bias around here. So here's my little disclaimer: I've been around Macs for over a decade and I even own one. Despite that, I'm quite certain my personal hell will be having to troubleshoot Macs for an eternity.

Apple's products, at least current ones, are nice for first impressions and as long as nothing too out of the ordinary happens, but the messiahs of computing or pinnacles of human technological advancement they're not.

Re:Too Literal

[kosmosik]

> Steve uses a cellphone - Hmmm..... Now here's where it gets interesting.

Quite a different matter. Steve likes to control things. They have a tight grip over iPods/iTunes (main revenue stream) - they own it. They have tight grip on Mac OS X - it can run only their hardware.

In fact it is a semi monopoly. Thiking of a PC I can get a PC that runs Windows/Linux whatever from any vendor I like. Be it IBM/Lenoovo, Dell, HP, smaller shops etc. - if I don't like HP I go to Dell and vice versa.

Now if from some reason you want to switch hardware vendors and still run Mac OS X you can't do it. You must go to one vendor. I have quite really have enough of Apple and this is probably my last Mac. It is not due Apple directly. I live in Poland and here there is no Apple Company - here we have Apple IMC (Independent Marketing Company) Poland - they have shitty service and given that Mac like any other PC breaks in one or two years and needs service (mine has dead SuperDrive) it is a PITA.

So basically with all above in mind Apple WILL NOT go into cellphones since in this market they are not dictating the rules - the service provider are. Also the cellphone market is saturated so I don't really imagine what Apple can bring to it.

> Is there a cell phone on the market today that even approaches the power,
> design and ease of use of a Mac or an iPod? Obviously, no.

Obviously a Nokia or Motorola. I know you mac-heads just love your iPods and Macs but please keep in mind that there is like 1/4 of whole Earths population of cellphones out here and just a handfull of iPods and even less Macs.

> Now, is Steve willing to shake up the cell phone industry like he did the music biz?

I think they are not in position to shake anything in that market and Steve knows that.

Re:Too Literal

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm sorry, I was *almost* believing you had full command of faculties, until you posted this:

"Obviously a Nokia or Motorola."

Motorola phones are almost universally loathed for their UI. They take phone interfaces to new lows that make people long for the days of brick phones that had no additional screens. The outside? Sleek and sexy. But if all you think Macs are is slick packaging, you need seek help. Professional help. Fast. So you don't hurt yourself. Or more importantly, someone else.

Alright Dotters, let's get this out of the way.

[Dystopian Rebel]

With just one round-house kick, Technological Jesus can stagger Chuck Norris.

Re:Alright Dotters, let's get this out of the way.

[__aaclcg7560]

Anyone can beat Chuck Norris. Can Technological Jesus beat Santa Claus?

Re:Alright Dotters, let's get this out of the way.

[Dunbal]

With just one round-house kick, Technological Jesus can stagger Chuck Norris.

      Only in Kansas...

Re:Alright Dotters, let's get this out of the way.

[rob1980]

Technological Jesus extracts confessions from Jack Bauer.

Most disapointing Apple rumor of all time....

[amichalo]

I was shocked that after I forwarded a personal email from Steve Jobs to 100 of my closest friends, I did NOT receive a free iPod as promised.

Re:Most disapointing Apple rumor of all time....

[Anonymous Coward]

I bet you received a nasty email back from Steve Jobs.

At least that's what happened when I posted one of his emails to a mail list. (And the reason he replied was because I CC'ed him with a list post, so I had reason to post it on the list.)

Re:Most disapointing Apple rumor of all time....

[Jerry Smith]

I bet you received a nasty email back from Steve Jobs.

At least that's what happened when I posted one of his emails to a mail list. (And the reason he replied was because I CC'ed him with a list post, so I had reason to post it on the list.) Gil Amelio, is that you?!

I think they left out the biggest one

[DreadfulGrape]

"Apple will be out of business in X years."

Re:I think they left out the biggest one

[tbone1]

I think my old friends at The Mac Observer did a great thing when they came up with the Apple Death Knell counter. It's interesting, for those of us who follow this sort of thing, what some of the Death Knells involve and who makes them and why. Heck, I think the editor-in-chief even included himself once.

Re:I think they left out the biggest one

[Phat_Tony]

You forgot the word "beleaguered."

It's "Beleaguered Apple will be out of business in X years," with X usually approximately equal to 5.

Re:I think they left out the biggest one

[jjeffries]

You're expecting it in about 10 years, then?

Re:I think they left out the biggest one

[DreadfulGrape]

Good point - perhaps I should have said N years.

Why does this idiot myth continue?

[Reality Master 101]

the persistent rumor that Apple will release Mac OS X for PC -- described as 'so counter-productive and financially damaging for Apple that we doubt the company has ever seriously considered it.'

Yeah, because it sure hurt Microsoft so release an operating system for the PC, and not come out with their own hardware [sarcasm]. Where does this dumb idea come from? Very, very, very VERY few people buy Apple primarily because they like the hardware. People buy Apple because they like the software. When it comes to computers, APPLE IS A SOFTWARE COMPANY. They are NOT a hardware company!

Within a year, Apple could potentially be the world dominant software supplier if they would just get a clue.

Would it be harder to support a lot of different hardware? Of course! So what? They need to stop being cowards and take the plunge.

Re:Why does this idiot myth continue?

[Anonymous Coward]

Apple enjoys something like 30% margins on hardware sales. Why in the world would they be crazy enough to cannibalize their own hardware sales so people can buy a $300 PC and run Mac OS on it instead? Have you any idea what it would require to write unix kernel extensions to make the 30,000,000 pieces of hardware out there to work properly with the mac os from scratch? Oh yeah, I'm sure they'll get right on that.

Get a clue. It's not going to happen.

Re:Why does this idiot myth continue?

[realisticradical]

Very, very, very VERY few people buy Apple primarily because they like the hardware.

I slightly beg to differ. It's not that people buy Macs because they think the graphics cards are great or the processors are the best. Though for a time some did.

Apple products are extremely stylish and trendy. The brushed metal look is in along with everything turning white, something I have heard described as the iPod effect.

People also buy apple because of the simplicity of their hardware. I'm very fond of the little things they do like the magnetic power cable and a power supply with a place to wind up the cord.

Still though it's a small consideration in the grand scheme of things. It's OSX that I'm really buying and if I could buy the less expensive and sometimes the better desktop parts I would likely just use the OS on a box of my own construction.

Re:Why does this idiot myth continue?

[WilliamSChips]

The myth continues because they tried to do Mac-clones once and it failed for them. Personally, I'm ambivalent on the issue liking neither Mac software nor hardware

Re:Why does this idiot myth continue?

[xero314]

Comparing Apple to Microsoft and stating that apple could be competitive in the generic PC OS world, is a little short sighted, and off the mark. One of the aspects that people like about Apple products is that they work, out of the box, 100% of the time. When you turn on a Macintosh, for example, and install the OS (assuming you wanted to install a different version than it came with) you don't have to go searching for drivers and you don't have to worry about hardware compatibility issues. This is because Macs only run on a small subset of possible hardware that has been tested to work with their software.

It would be foolish for Apple to release OS X for generic hardware. OS X has remained stable and secure over the years because of Apples complete control over the hardware. You just can't do that when it is expected to run on any hardware.

Now if they wanted to release an API that could be used to develope software that could then run on any OS that supports the API, that would be another story. Then those that like the stability that comes with a OS hardware package could continue with Mac, and someone else could create an OS for generic hardware that ran the same exact applications (without out the need for seperate and/or conditional compilation).

Re:Why does this idiot myth continue?

[Reality Master 101]

Apple enjoys something like 30% margins on hardware sales.

Apple (and Microsoft) enjoy something like 98% margins on software sales.

Why in the world would they be crazy enough to cannibalize their own hardware sales so people can buy a $300 PC and run Mac OS on it instead?

Have you seen how much money Microsoft makes on software?

Have you any idea what it would require to write unix kernel extensions to make the 30,000,000 pieces of hardware out there to work properly with the mac os from scratch?

You don't write a "kernel extension" for every piece of hardware. That's what drivers are for. And oh yeah, third party companies write the drivers, not Apple.

Re:Why does this idiot myth continue?

[squiggleslash]

I think Apple should get it over with and release Mac OS X under the GPL.

Not because this is in their best interests, but merely because it would be the ultimate way to thoroughly annoy their most obnoxious supporters. Those arguing that it is impossible to make more money selling an operating system than selling cheap crap in stylish boxes would find their fears realised, and yet the world would still end up better off.

Also I like Mac OS X, and I want to run it on my Thinkpad.

Re:Why does this idiot myth continue?

[Jerry Rivers]

"I'm ambivalent on the issue liking neither Mac software nor hardware"

That statement sounds unequivocal and resolute, hardly ambivalent at all.

Re:Why does this idiot myth continue?

[spaceyhackerlady]

It's not that people buy Macs because they think the graphics cards are great or the processors are the best. Though for a time some did.

Apple products are extremely stylish and trendy. The brushed metal look is in along with everything turning white, something I have heard described as the iPod effect.

People also buy apple because of the simplicity of their hardware. I'm very fond of the little things they do like the magnetic power cable and a power supply with a place to wind up the cord...

I didn't buy my Mac Mini because of the hardware. I bought it because it's a neat little box that can do cool shit.

Of course it looks cool. It's designed as a unit, a coherent whole (hardware and software), something the Windoze folks have never gotten quite right. It's one damned cool package, everything from the box it came in to the documentation. How could I lose?

Nowadays it's pretty much taken for granted that any box you buy will have enough CPU and memory to do what it's supposed to do. The whole package is what matters more. We don't ask "How fast is it?" much anymore. We ask "What does it do?"

...laura

Re:Why does this idiot myth continue?

[Anonymous Coward]

Which leaves kernel-crashing software in the hands of third-parties; something Apple would be loathe to do. By a vast majority the #1 reason a Windows box fails is due to a faulty driver which is supplied by a third-party company. Apple's kernel model isn't any different; drivers load in priveleged kernel space and when they crash they take the entire system with them.

Re:Why does this idiot myth continue?

[Nasarius]

Now if they wanted to release an API that could be used to develope software that could then run on any OS that supports the API, that would be another story. Then those that like the stability that comes with a OS hardware package could continue with Mac, and someone else could create an OS for generic hardware that ran the same exact applications

You're describing what Qt has done for years. Though I suppose ~$3300 is a bit much to pay for your typical Mac shareware developer.

Re:Why does this idiot myth continue?

[Pfhreak]

Yeah, because it sure hurt Microsoft so release an operating system for the PC, and not come out with their own hardware [sarcasm].

That'd be because Microsoft sells their operating system to every hardware vendor who wants to save a buck by not developing their own OS in-house. MS-DOS didn't have a heavily entrenched incumbent OS to compete against, whereas Mac OS X would have to wage the uphill battle against Windows to become a profitable generic-PC OS, meanwhile Apple's hardware sales would suffer.

Very, very, very VERY few people buy Apple primarily because they like the hardware. People buy Apple because they like the software.

Very true. However, just because the software and OS are what are driving Apple's sales, that doesn't mean that that's where they make their money. They make the bulk of their profits on hardware sales, the OS and software are what motivates people to buy said hardware.

When it comes to computers, APPLE IS A SOFTWARE COMPANY. They are NOT a hardware company!

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

Within a year, Apple could potentially be the world dominant software supplier if they would just get a clue.

They wouldn't have a snowball's chance in hell of becoming the dominant software supplier in a million years by supporting Mac OS X on non-Apple hardware. They'd end up going through the same thing they went through 10—15 years ago, when they experimented with Mac clones: all the other companies (who wouldn't have to make up the cost of software R&D and support) would easily undercut the price of Apple's hardware, canniballizing their sales. Since hardware sales are Apple's bread-and-butter, they'd end up hemorrhaging money, and the only way to make up that with licensing fees would be to make those fees prohibitively expensive, making other hardware vendors reluctant to add Mac OS X to their offerings.

Would it be harder to support a lot of different hardware? Of course! So what? They need to stop being cowards and take the plunge.

They're not being cowards, they're being smart. Apple's business model is completely, fundamentally different from Microsoft's. To have a chance at being profitable off OS and software sales, Apple would have to completely change their fundamental business model, only to face an uphill battle against the ultra-entrenched Windows OS.

Re:Why does this idiot myth continue?

[IANAAC]

Would it be harder to support a lot of different hardware? Of course! So what? They need to stop being cowards and take the plunge.

I think it would be more than difficult. While certainly not the case with some hardware manufacturers, I'm willing to bet that many other manufacturers have signed agreements with Microsoft, giving an amount of exculsivity to them.

No proof, of course, but it would seem logical.

Re:Why does this idiot myth continue?

[IANAAC]

Also I like Mac OS X, and I want to run it on my Thinkpad.

You can, albeit slow and illegal. Use Maxxuss' tiger image (found all over the place) and vmware.

Like I said, it's slow, but it works.

Re:Why does this idiot myth continue?

[majortom1981]

Obviously you havent seen pc's like the aopen minipc. We all know its osx that people buy apples for. Apple computers are now the same as pcs except for the operating system

Re:Why does this idiot myth continue?

[edflyerssn007]

Maxxus' image is a bit old. People have 10.4.8 (the latest) running with their own kernel (Semthex) on both AMD and Intel Procs. You need at least an athlon 64 or a late model P4 to run it, and then its on par with late gen g5 hardware. Search on bittorrent for the latest stuff, also Insanely Mac has some good stuff.

I believe some people already have leopard running on generic PC's, its just unrealeased as their no point in having tons of people running beta's.

Re:Why does this idiot myth continue?

[DaggertipX]

While I don't have hard numbers to back it up, I would wager that 30% of hardware sales is a greater amount of money than the potential 98% of software sales, even to a wider audience.
That's not even taking into account continued revenue from hardware upgrades versus software upgrades. I would guess that the non-geek population replaces their machines more often than they do their OS.

Re:Why does this idiot myth continue?

[Anonymous Coward]

The aopen doesn't compare to my Mac Mini for sheer style and simplicity. I bought the Mac for it's style and price, not for OS X. I didn't even consider buying one until I found that I could load Linux on it. But then I turned it on, experienced OS X, and somehow that Linux load just never got done.

Re:Why does this idiot myth continue?

[adrianmonk]

I think Apple should get it over with and release Mac OS X under the GPL. Not because this is in their best interests, but merely because it would be the ultimate way to thoroughly annoy their most obnoxious supporters.

Nah, they should go one step further: they should release the source under a license that is sorta similar to, but subtly incompatible with the GPL. Why? Because that would be the ultimate way to thoroughly annoy both their most obnoxious supporters and the most obnoxious GPL supporters at the same time. I mean, really, if you're going to piss some people off, why not go all the way?

Re:What about....

[nutznboltz2003]

Apple Computers actually cost the same as PCs when you consider all the features that they include as "standard".
Oh wait, that's under the top ten rationalizations of Apple fanboys, my bad. Actually, back when iLife first came out, that was a very compelling package that did not exist by default with Windows, and it did help even the cost. Granted, over time, Windows has caught up very nicely, and the RC candidates of Vista Ultimate included pretty much the same things as the iLife suite. Some are not as nice (Windows Movie Maker still lags behind iMovie), but they are getting there.

Everyone makes excuses for what they buy, and a lot of people like to mock things they don't fully understand. People have their reasons, be it that's what they have allways used, to that's what their tech friend recommended. I myself use both platforms, and have tried linux before, but I'm not a linux guru and could not get a stable distro running on my laptop (nc6320). That model apparently has a lot of weird issues. Of course, even the release version of Vista Business edition failed to recognize most of the laptops hardware.

Fanbois aside, both machines have a place in the world, and both are good at what they were designed to do. Failure to realize this shows signs of ignorance or apathy. Which one is it? My guess is, fanbois don't know, and they don't care.

--nutz

OSX Lite for PCs

[sottitron]

I always thought it would be cool if Apple released OSX Lite for PCs. This would nix some of the iLife Apps or cripple them (think iPhoto Elements, no Garage band, no iWeb, and limited iMovie) and would probably not allow any pro apps to run (Final Cut Pro, Logic, Aperture, etc...). Maybe just strip out Quartz Extreme and some of the other core (audio, video, image) services entirely. This way they could make money from selling a $50-$80 OS to all PC owners and they would have a whole new platform for the switch campaign - if you like OS X Lite, check out what full blown OS X on a Mac can do! Plus they'd reap all the benefits from selling through the likes of Dell and HP and it would start to put Windows into check with there being a competing OS option (that comes with the actual support that comes with a consumer facing software vendor, sorry Linux) all through the OEMs. PLUS, they get more hardware support and they let the hardware manufacturers write the drivers for Macs just like they do for Windows... one can dream.

Re:OSX Lite for PCs

[beelsebob]

Except that by crippling it, we'll be back to the bad old days of "Don't use MacOS, it's a baby's OS, it can't do everything."

Re:OSX Lite for PCs

[sottitron]

I can agree with this, but Microsoft, ever blazing the trail of innovation [sarcasm], decided to put out a crap-tacular version of Vista called Home Basic. Apple could draw parallels to this and express that full blown OS X is Mac Hardware only. I imagine that OS X Lite would install video tech demos of the stuff not included so that the user is made aware of all the killer features they are missing. And again, its just an idea... And not to knock the old days of Apple, but I had no interest in it whatsoever before OS X. OS 9 and before just bored me to tears and seemed confusing to move around in. I think the windows task bar was better than the switcher, but OS X's Dock puts the taskbar to shame.

Re:OSX Lite for PCs

[zlogic]

What's more, because there are less drivers for OS X than for Windows (especially internal stuff like drive controllers, chipsets, soundcards etc.), we'll be hearing even more Apple-bashing.

What about

[KricmeKroc]

...backdating stock options??

oh wait...

Ya Know

[fullphaser]

If I wanted to read every time CNET comes out with a new top 10 list that their employees seem to have the time to put together, than the site that I have in my bookmarks would likely be CNET. But seriously /. if you are going to post every little review they do in their spare time and than proceed to make a top 10 list, than make it it

Re:What about....

[z-kungfu]

the truth hurts yo so bad mr. windows/pc fanboy....

My favorite...

[Enzo1977]

My favorite rumor appeared on /. that Apple was to buy Tivo. Oh the absolute ellation at the mere thought. But then months later apple announced that iTV thing.

Re:What about....

[WilliamSChips]

Only if you buy a computer OEM. Something I would never do for a desktop unless I needed a huge number of them.

Sun/Apple rumor has been alive for years

[Infonaut]

That was a big one for a while.

Seems now the rumors have flipped on that one.

Miracle of technological Jesus

[Anonymous Coward]

Turning Aqua into WINE.

Oh, wait... that's backward.

Re:What about....

[ozamosi]

When looking for a powerful, small (12-13 inches) laptop, Apple was way cheaper than other PC equivalents. Of course, the Apple didn't have as much extras (fingerprint reader, PCMCIA port etc)... I talked to a friend who bought a iBook a few years ago, and he said that he bought his because it was cheaper as well.

My point is that they give you value for powerfull, tiny machines. I wouldn't buy anything else from them, though (I wouldn't buy any Apple hardware, since I use Linux, and Apple managed to take the supported Intel hardware and fuck it up completely, but that's a different story)

For the record, I got 10% discount for being a student (so did my friend). Without that, it might have been as expensive as, or perhaps even more expensive than other options.

space fill

[bastardblaster]

this article is just slow news space filler, just like this comment

Apple offers to buy BeOS

[Galley_SimRacer]

Be Inc. not accepting Apple's $120 million offer was a huge blunder. They ended up selling themselves to Palm for a measly $5 million or so.

Re:#11

[Pfhreak]

Personally, I always find the reactions to the latest market share data funny. It seems like responses fall mainly in two categories: Apple fanboys shouting that a microscopic increase in market share is proof that Microsoft is a dinosaur well on its way to extinction, and Microsoft fanboys who say that, because Apple still doesn't have >50% market share, they're going to go out of business any day now, just as soon as the iPod stops being the "in" thing. The rest of us (Linux/other OS fans, people who use Apple and/or Microsoft OSes, but aren't fanboys about it, etc.) seem to just roll our eyes about how overblown market share data is.

Apples Keep Doctors Away

[aapold]

That's my favorite rumor anyway....

iTunes record label? How about Apple Records?

[Anonymous Coward]

I tried searching around, but I couldn't figure out how much Apple Records was worth. If Apple Computers bought Apple Records, it would give Apple Computers a record label and it would prevent any more lawsuits regarding that old agreement between Apple Computers and Apple Records where Apple Computers was not supposed to enter the music business. Anyone know how much would that set Apple Computers back?

"The Secret OS X Build"? Staggering?

[argent]

OS X started out running on Intel.

The idea that Apple *wouldn't* keep a version running on Intel was always the staggering thing about this. It's like you said "Prince Charles has routine health checkups" and got the response "How do you know? have you ever seen him?"

Off all these 'wrong' rumors...

[turnitover]

...how many of them were started or at least propogated -- as news -- by the editors of CNET? The "Apple will be out of business" one that was mentioned by /.ers but elided over by TFA, was certainly an example.

The VERY BIGGEST OF THEM ALL

[litewoheat]

They forgot the rumor that's been around since the Apple I:

Apple is going out of business.

Funny that...

[mbessey]

I was just cleaning up my office and came across my Rhapsody for PC install discs, as well as the Yellow Box for Windows CD. I can't quite bring myself to throw them away - I should make a diorama of "stuff I worked on at Apple that never shipped".

Re:iTunes record label? How about Apple Records?

[The Spie]

That won't happen. It would require the agreement of five people: Paul McCartney, Ringo Starr, Olivia Harrison, Yoko Ono, and Neil Aspinall. Given the fact that Paul and Yoko are control freaks when it comes to Beatles exploitation, they'd never allow a purchase.

Options

[Anonymous Coward]

I think now the biggest rumor is who at Apple, currently and former, will be sent to the slammer for back dating stock options.

Control...

[SuperKendall]

So basically with all above in mind Apple WILL NOT go into cellphones since in this market they are not dictating the rules - the service provider are. Also the cellphone market is saturated so I don't really imagine what Apple can bring to it.

I agree with your basic premise (control). However, that is what makes the chances of them coming out with a phone 50/50 in my mind.

True they do not exactly control the networks, nor would they build thier own or rely only on WiMax or some other crazy scheme. However, as an MVNO they are basically paying the carriers for every minute a customer uses the network - apart from that they do not care. So apple has the ability to have more reasonable plans and better rates and charges that make sense. This is exactly why I went with Virgin Mobile for a phone.

Now the big mystery to me here is how carriers treat data traffic across in an MVNO arrangement. There's no way Apple would do an iPhone that could not do data across a network. Wuld that use simply count as minutes in an MVNO arrangement? Or would carriers even allow an MVNO such access? Virgin mobile does offer web surfing on some phones, so it might be possible.

They only thing Apple can't exactly control is quality of service, but even there if they would simply make a little better antenna that picked up signals better it would be a vast improvement over many phones today.

Obviously a Nokia or Motorola. I know you mac-heads just love your iPods and Macs but please keep in mind that there is like 1/4 of whole Earths population of cellphones out here and just a handfull of iPods and even less Macs.

Great googly moogly man, don't you realize that all of us iPod owners already have phones - including the ones you speak of?

In fact I own a RAZR. I am hard pressed to say I have had a phone I despise more - I dislike the signal reception, I dislike the interface, I really especially dislike the physical aspects of the phone as I find the buttons very hard to press correctly (preferring even much smaller buttons on other phones!) and the whole point of a clamsheel design is lost when you stupidly put buttons on the side of a phone.

I have used Nokias and they like before, but although the interface s better often again signal quality is low, the UI is not great and integration with a computer is primitive compared to what it could be if carriers were not so reluctant to allow networking outside thier own networks.

One thing alone that Apple could to do a phone is take that ear-destroying volume of the iPod and transfer it into a phone. I was trying to answer a call in the middle of Disney World recently - I might as well have been trying to listen for the oceon in a sea shell.

So please, do not talk to me about power and design and ease of use and then in the same breath bring up the maker of a phone I have almost taken a sledge hammer to and at least three seperate occasions. You may have low standards with phones, but I would like much more.

Re:Control...

[kosmosik]

> I have used Nokias and they like before, but although the
> interface s better often again signal quality is low,

And you think that oh-so-great-praise-Apple can make, a better phone than companies that do it for years? Nokia, Ericsson and so fotrth right now do great phones and lots of research on communication and such. So I am not exactly convinced that if Apple would do a Phone it would have better signal qualit. In fact I can also think the opposite - since Apple is known for doing stupid stuff like shielding the wifi antena with aluminium case (like in PowerBooks). :)

> the UI is not great and integration with a computer is primitive
> compared to what it could be if carriers were not so reluctant
> to allow networking outside thier own networks.

That is getting to not longer be a problem. Right now I own Nokia E61 (a bit bulky but does the stuff I need) and it comes equipped with wifi and also a SIP client.

Speaking of integration Apple could integrate their phone with Mac OS but that is merely it. Most of this phone users would be running Windows any way (same thing as with iPod - most of its owners run Windows) so there is not much that Apple can do with integration meaning syncing contacts/emails etc. since they will mostly need to plug into ActiveSync which is not so great. So also I don't see any improvement here also.

> One thing alone that Apple could to do a phone is take that
> ear-destroying volume of the iPod and transfer it into a phone.

I didn't really known that iPod comes with cell-phone like headset. It doesn't.

> I was trying to answer a call in the middle of Disney World
> recently - I might as well have been trying to listen
> for the oceon in a sea shell.

Have you been hibernated for last few years? Most of decent phones come with loudspeaker mode. It works very well for me and in fact has a quite ear-blowing volume.

> So please, do not talk to me about power and design and
> ease of use and then in the same breath bring up the maker
> of a phone I have almost taken a sledge hammer to and
> at least three seperate occasions.

You have generalized one not-so-good cellphone to majority of others. There is a flaw in your reasoning.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Generalization

I do agree that there are areas that cellphones can improve in. I just don't think that Apple can do it. It is certain that from Apple phone mostly MacOS users would benefit (integration, sameless design). But Mac OS users is like 3% of computer users and keep in mind that cellphones are used also by people who do not use computers at all.

> You may have low standards with phones, but I would like much more.

And you bought Motorola RAZR? :> Wow that is a good taste...

Re:Control...

[SuperKendall]

And you think that oh-so-great-praise-Apple can make, a better phone than companies that do it for years? Nokia, Ericsson and so fotrth right now do great phones and lots of research on communication and such. So I am not exactly convinced that if Apple would do a Phone it would have better signal qualit. In fact I can also think the opposite - since Apple is known for doing stupid stuff like shielding the wifi antena with aluminium case (like in PowerBooks). :)

Let me be perfectly clear. I think a six year old with a box of legos and a peanut-butter sandwhich can make better phones than Motoroloa and Sony (I have also used an Erricson for some years, certainly better than the RAZR but still not great).

Current powerbooks have much better airport range, and Apple does have some expereince with wireless design also due to Bluetooth support they have in every product.

Speaking of integration Apple could integrate their phone with Mac OS but that is merely it. Most of this phone users would be running Windows any way (same thing as with iPod - most of its owners run Windows) so there is not much that Apple can do with integration meaning syncing contacts/emails etc. since they will mostly need to plug into ActiveSync which is not so great. So also I don't see any improvement here also.

Boy it's funny to watch Slashdot users get blindsided by true advancements and not be able to see them coming. Can I rephrase what you just said? "Apple would have to support Windows, whcih they would never do, except of course they do already".

Apple would of course use iTunes as the conduit to sync with the phone, and perhaps something else... again probably supporting Windows just as they do with the iPod.

I didn't really known that iPod comes with cell-phone like headset. It doesn't.

Not all of us want the look of retarded borg wannabes. For those people, wimply making the speaker louder is enough. I was speaking of the very load volume that iPod offers, with any headphones connected.

Have you been hibernated for last few years? Most of decent phones come with loudspeaker mode. It works very well for me and in fact has a quite ear-blowing volume.

I have a RAZR, the "pinnacle" of modern phones. Since you seem to be unable to read english, I'll type real slow - THE RAZR WAS UNHEARABLE IN A LOUD ENVIRONMENT EVEN ON SPEAKER.

You have generalized one not-so-good cellphone to majority of others. There is a flaw in your reasoning.

I have collaped a lifetime of cell phone ownership and friends cell-phone ownership into a well-deserved general opinion of cell-phone designers. I'm happy for you that you apparently have no tbeen around long enough to see the true extent of the cell-phone market design failure.

I do agree that there are areas that cellphones can improve in. I just don't think that Apple can do it. It is certain that from Apple phone mostly MacOS users would benefit (integration, sameless design). But Mac OS users is like 3% of computer users and keep in mind that cellphones are used also by people who do not use computers at all.

No reason at all to think a comapny with the best track record in small consumer device design in the last twenty years can improve things - no reason at all!

If you every get tired of that taste of sand, just try pulling your head out.

Intent?

[SuperKendall]

I'd so totally enjoy entering phone numbers - or even better, SMS messages - with that little wheel thingy.

I think you may have been being sarcastic there, and indeed I don't think I long for a return to rotary dialing...

But entering SMS numbers might be easier, I don't really care for predictve entry on my RAZR at the moment, and I find the common "three letters per key" method to be kind of slow if you don't use it all the time. The combination of a keypress and a wheel might actually be kind of quick.

and the difference between Apple and Jesus is that

[porky_pig_jr]

Apple did got resurrected.

Expensive memory

[Jerry Smith]

Usually 1.5x to 2x the price of mid-high quality ram. getting about the same quality ram off the shelf would cost you $160 or so to go from 1gb to 2gb.

I agree heartily. The prices are 'premium' while the quality just averages 'good'. My guess is that the AppleStore charges those prices to give the retailer a break. Only thing I can think of.