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

[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.

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.

Like a kind of technological Jesus Christ

[Anonymous Coward]

He didn't play a lot of games either.

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

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."

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.

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.

I think they left out the biggest one

[DreadfulGrape]

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

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?

[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.