Apple will never take OS X public
All the “I’m a Mac” commercials and recent advertising campaigns have really stirred up a hornets’ nest of conversation surrounding Apple’s best of class operating system; all the naysayers who previously stuck to their Windows guns still aren’t considering a switch to Mac hardware, but rather are insisting (quite fervently) that Apple will HAVE to take OS X public at some point to really achieve success in the real world. There are a few reasons why this will never happen, so do two things: read the reasons, and then cope with the fact that you will never run OS X on your Dell-configured PC. Never.
First, prior to listing reasons why OS X won’t go public, I would like to add that yes, a PC can be coaxed into running a low-grade version of OS X; a friend of mine did such a thing on his laptop, however, we’re not talking about simply managing to run OS X in a poor iteration. I’m referencing running the software natively and properly, so save your fiery comments for some other sap.
1. Steve won’t sell out – so many people point a finger at Apple Computers’ switch to Apple Inc. as evidence that someday Apple will simply be a conglomerate electronics manufacturer and design company, and will inevitably release the computing and software specialities to the open market. Why would Steve do that, exactly?
After all, it is fairly obvious that OS X (in all forms; Panther, Tiger, soon to be Leopard) far surpass any Windows software on the market (I’m talking to you, too, XP). Â Some would argue that if the software is so incredible, why not release it to the market?
Apple, in its recent past, has established itself as a “set apart” type of company, atypical for the industry, and unique in its products. That is directly at the hands of Steve Jobs, who will in no way want his creation losing that Mac singularity.
2. If OS X goes public, Mac computers go kaput – why spend so much time and money establishing a chic, sleek and high-powered computing line only to throw it all away when OS X is available on a $300 E-machine computer? Could OS X even effectively be run on such a machine?
Probably not; though OS X is a lean-running, high-powered operating system, throwing it to the dogs so to speak would seem a bit foolish. Also, from a purely business-like perspective, one part of the Mac image is the computer hardware and case itself; the second is OS X. Separating the two makes both lesser components.
3. Going public would make OS X another Linux – when I say that, obviously I don’t mean it would be free and open source, etc. What I mean is when an operating system is available to the public as openly as Windows, the operating system is directly in the shadow of Windows.
That is to say that if it is available to anyone who owns a computer, it will not necessarily take off and be as successful as Windows;Â Linux has a lot of benefits over Windows, and is free to top it off, but it still has a relatively small following.
Why? There’s no reason to switch from what’s comfortable. However, Apple computers project an image with both the operating system and styling; it isn’t about just an operating system, it is a statement about the user.
Apple recognizes this, obviously; the “I’m a Mac” ad campaign tells potential buyers, “If you choose a Mac, you’re automatically a step above all those Windows users in every way.” How can you keep the cool factor when your Windows-using buddies can run OS X too? Then you just have a shiny white face on the same thing a PC user has.
So, dear readers, the end result is that OS X will never go public. I feel like this article should almost not need to be written, as these points seem fairly obvious; however, if it helps put to rest the negative Apple comments from users who are just too proud and bitter to switch to an Mac, I will feel like I’ve accomplished something.
Related Posts:
June 3rd, 2007
Another fatty with a goaty rant. Anybody that defines their coolness with their pc or mac is seriously sad. Get some sun dude
June 3rd, 2007
Your entire argument (read that opinion) is that Steve would be a sell out if he allows OSX to be ran on a PC. Your self image relies on the fact that you feel suprior to PC users because you own a shiny MAC. How sad is that? I am sitting in an airport typing this msg on my shiny new MacBook Pro. I still plan to install OSX on my think pad and my wifes gateway.
There will be a minimum hardware requirement which will be honestly lower than the minimum for Vista.
June 3rd, 2007
@Gesser:
Wow. Three sentences: asinine, non sequitur, and asinine. Grow up and get some class. The guy might have been addressing an issue you didn’t think needed to be addressed, but show us where he’s ranting? On second thought, don’t. You clearly talk to much and consider too little. Go read a book. This internet-thing is clearly too challenging for you.
June 3rd, 2007
@John
I think that’s an unwarranted over-simplification of the guy’s argument. Granted, he does consider the image-factor. In trying to read Steve Job’s mind though (which is what everybody’s forced to do when they write one of these pieces), that’s almost certainly part of the necessary factors, isn’t it? The sell-out thing was point one. Point two was that hardware sales (a significant percentage of profits) would tank. That’s not a minor point. He doesn’t neglect it, but you do. We’ve all heard both those two points. The third point was about the “why bother effect”, and he used Linux as an example.
My own point is this: you yourself concentrate on only one of his three points, and then you accuse him of only having made that one point himself. That’s called projection.
My only thought when I started reading this is “Why is someone actually making this argument? Who precisely is out there, seriously thinking Apple will make OS X available to the public?” Nobody who pays attention. There will always be someone out there wanting something that’s not going to happen, but that? It’s not gonna happen. I think the reasons he cites are actually pretty much on-target. Don’t criticize this guy for making them. He’s just trying to read a situation he’s not in control of. I think he’s done a decent job though.
June 3rd, 2007
I am not neglecting MAC hardware sales. I don’t beleive they will go away. The hardware sales will increase. People like us will not trade a PC for a MAC. People that hink MACs are expensive will try OSX on a PC and realize how solid it is compared to the standard blue screen of death.
I’m sorry I did not touch on his linux argument because he didnt really say much. Linux is NOT a good example because linux is what I LEFT to go to my MacBook Pro. I have spent years trying to get linux and vmware to fill my business computing needs. I suddenly one day realized that my G4 did everything I was trying to do with LINUX and Windows. You can’t use linux as an example because a vast majority of people can’t make linux do what they want it to do without a whole bunch of fiddling with the OS. I don’t think that I need to remind you that the biggest reason why people give your using a MAC is that it just works.
Steve jobs pointed out a few days ago that APPLE is a software company. If you listen to what is going on you will see that APPLE Computer IS “Apple INC.” Steve jobs has learned the lesson that software tied directly to hardware doesnt work well in a computer. It worked very well on the iPod and it will work well for the iphone.
This is why I stuck to the biggest point. Your OPINION that it won’t happen because somehow the mac will loose its coolness. OSX will remain cool even when running on a thinkpad.
June 3rd, 2007
Differentiating your products from those of your competitors to meet the market need is a well-known winning strategy. Apple differentiates through OS software, UI software, overall hardware design, and to a lesser degree, hardware (very little for PCs and AppleTV, but more for iPod and iPhone).
If someday we get to the point such that computers are commodities where the hardware is common and very cheap relative to the cost of developing the OS and UI software, then I can see Apple willing to license its software to others. In other words, if Apple can’t see a cost-effective way to differentiate its product (hw and sw combined) from others because the hardware is so cheap, then they might as well get the profit from the software by licensing. We are not there yet.
In many ways, developing specialized user interface hardware like the iPod, iPhone and AppleTV are ways to diversify and protect Apple from that “someday.”
June 3rd, 2007
Newsflash: I have a Powerbook and a PC. I love both. To stir up a debate about which OS is best is moronic at best.
XP is a very good OS, and so is OS X.
June 3rd, 2007
Think Different.
June 3rd, 2007
I completely disagree with you. OSX is not about coolnes. it’s about choice. I made the choice to use OSX for my computing needs. Why should not a minimum requirement of intel duo core brand PC:s be able to have that choice? When it comes to hardware. I would buy an Imac even if i could get a PC with OSX.why? it is my choice to make. As long as i feel Apple can offer more value i will go apple all out. I sincerely dought apple will offer less value going forward from 2007. I found out about mac existence -95 when i was at a friend and he showed me his “pizza” box computer without a dos prompt. I made the choice right then and there. ease of use was my main argument back then. I Use PC att work because im forced to. That is however open for debate now a days beacuse IT has seen that giving people the choice to have osx does not have the disadvantages they initially thought. They researched the question put before them in a calm and intelligent manner. I suggest you do the same about your computing needs. Coolnes should not be you first priority. The graphics ability of osx could be a priority? The vast options available to you when it comes to freedom of choice using for exampel parallels or VMware could be another. Please do not make out that all Mac users are coolnes seeking people… use mac as a working tool as well as a play and be creative tool none more important then the other.
June 3rd, 2007
“a PC can be coaxed into running a low-grade version of OS X” ??
There is only one version – 10.4 Tiger, it’s not low-grade, and it doesn’t take much coaxing, about 30 minutes.
“Linux has a lot of benefits over Windows, and is free to top it off, but it still has a relatively small following.”
Isn’t this also the Vista issue – drivers for the various bits. This is also an issue with point one above. You forget, Windows is also comes free on all new PC’s.
June 3rd, 2007
Thanks for the comments, guys:
To Gesser: I’m an avid martial artist and a golfer, and generally write most of my posts outside so as to obtain necessary sunlight. Thanks for the tip.
To John: Both your comments simplify the argument to one point; I wouldn’t have written it if there weren’t at least 3 valid arguments supporting my claim. You still fail to take into account the balance between the three; I am not highlighting one as superior to the other.
To Paulo: yes, there are obvioustly strengths to both operating systems. I have been an avid user of both for a while now as well, however the weaknesses of XP and Windows in general outweigh those of OS X; therefore, I must conclude OS X to be superior.
To Mac4Ever: I believe you misunderstood. I don’t hold personally that Macs should be used for the cool factor, I am simply saying Jobs has created Macs to be different, both inside and out, from PCs, and one take is that it has a certain vibe it projects. That is only a small element of the picture; after all, it’s what’s inside that counts.
Rick: I would say your comment that Windows comes “free” in all new PC’s is a bit off. You pay for Windows, because the hardware itself isn’t as expensive as what you actually pay for. Don’t think Microsoft is just handing out free copies of Windows..that’s a bit…shortsighted. Also, yes it is easy to get OS X up on a PC; however, it doesn’t run optimally. Would you disagree?
June 3rd, 2007
@ron. Wow, I touched a nerve there. Hard being a wannabe? I do admire your self image though, must be tough maintaining that in the face of reality huh? Class cannot be purchased by buying a certain computer brand. Everytime I watch the game spot editors reviewing a game they all look the same with their lates, their goatees their flabby double chins, their slightly balding gelled back hair, their macs, their anemic white skins… But hey they are part of the Mac clam , part of the Kevin Rose Realm. Refusing to bend to age gracefully thinking that if they identify with the scrawny kid on the Get a Mac adds they somehow justify their own insecurities. Well the thing is, a horse with a different name is still a horse. PC or Mac. OSX or Vista. Geez how pathetic. Ron go wax your back and stopping being a sucker for such obvious consumerism.
June 4th, 2007
@tristan.
no need to justify yourself to me dude. You look at yourself in the morning. Not me.
June 4th, 2007
“and then cope with the fact that you will never run OS X on your Dell-configured PC. Never.”
I did in 2004 with PearPC. It’s hella easier now that the Intel version is around. “Never say never”?
“I would like to add that yes, a PC can be coaxed into running a low-grade version of OS X; a friend of mine did such a thing on his laptop, however, we’re not talking about simply managing to run OS X in a poor iteration.”
Okay, so you’ve reversed your previous statement in the next sentence. Although I don’t know what is “low grade” or “poor iteration” about it.
“I’m referencing running the software natively and properly, so save your fiery comments for some other sap.”
Um, what is not “native” about running an x86 OS directly on x86 hardware?
(why am I commenting on random blogs found in Google news?)
June 4th, 2007
[...] Thriston Macyntyre from Mac.Blorge.com wrote an interesting piece, called: Apple will never take OS X public As I agree mostly with him, there are some areas, where I would put a diffent emphasis. Thriston makes three major points: [...]
June 4th, 2007
I really doubt Jobs is as concerned about coolness as he is about marketshare.
If you look at Apple’s financials over the last five years, you’ll see that Mac hardware is contributing less and less to their bottom line each quarter, and I think this is by design. Apple has been making the majority of its money from non-Mac hardware sales (software, services, and iPods) for a few years now.
All you have to do is listen to Jobs: he claims that Apple is a software company that makes its own hardware. I think this has been his plan for the last several years: leverage Apple’s great software and industrial design to improve OS X, and create great products like the iPod and iPhone, so when he decides to license OS X, the company will be able to weather the financial hit. I mean, seriously, what reason is there for Apple to have $12.5B in cash sitting around? I think they knew they were going to need it to weather the drop in revenue once they license OS X.
And by the way, Linux doesn’t outsell Windows because it’s perceived as more difficult to install, configure, use, and maintain, not because it isn’t as cool, or is overshadowed by Windows. There are plenty of Windows users who would like a usable GUI alternative to Microsoft, and an open OS X would give them what they want.
June 4th, 2007
This article completely misses the point.
The reason OSX works better, feels smoother and is, as stated, “cooler.” The coolness comes not from eye-candy or groovy industrial design. It’s about a melding of hardware and software. The hard stuff and soft stuff are DESIGNED to work together. Windows, by design, is designed to work on any old mish-mosh of parts from the junkyard.
It would be a disaster for Apple and OSX to officially separate the hardware from the software.
June 4th, 2007
Apple releasing OSX to run on everybody’s generic PC (or Dells, etc), is as likely as GM Releasing its Cadillac Northstar engine to Volkswagen. OSX is a component of the whole product.
June 4th, 2007
Not only is this plagiarised gibberish – the same nonsense has been written for years at other sites with higher standards of journalism – but it’s… gibberish. Thank goodness people like this don’t run major corporations like Apple.
June 4th, 2007
I said “Think Different” Because I would have hoped it would have reminded people that “Think Different” was started so that MAC users could feel a warm fuzzy for sticking with APPLE when everything looked bleak.
These adds were not meant to say it is a bad thing to be in the minority but to feel good about being loyal to those things you beleive in.
All apple has to do to install on a thinkpad is to allow it to happen and provide the necessary drivers. I also seem to remember that suddenly the beta install image was dramatically increased… drivers maybe?
Either way way Steve will not be a sellout for taking advantage of an opening. With the disapointing release of Vista. Why upgrade your PC when many of the pcs that can run XP will be able to run OSX where they can’t run vista.
“Apple is a software company.”
Giving a PC user the ability to run OSX is “Like giving someone in hell a glass of ice water!”
June 11th, 2007
OS X already runs on Dells, and all and other PC hardware.
It’s called OSx86
http://www.insanelymac.com
Ha!
June 24th, 2007
True. Apple will never go public with OS X for obvious reasons already known. Apple is a hardware vendor. They were geniuses to marry the most revolutionary OS in history with their hardware business. Unfortunately, the business strategy in the early years relegated them to a niche market (but the envy of all). Putting OS X on a Dell, or any other (gulp – Acer) MacDonald’s vendor would kill the hardware business of Apple. It’s common sense.
Apple finds ways to compete with Microsoft – where Microsoft is a wimp: iPhone, iTV, iWhatever… These are areas where Apple shows itself as a real company now. Sure, the Mac and OS X will forever be regarded as the “upper class†of personal computing. But business is business, and Steve Jobs isn’t dumb.