Either you guys are missing a huge point that I thought about or it isn't that feasible....
MacOS X will never be a windows. Windows is crap, Apple is Quality.
Apple wants to retain its good name while remaining in its current esteem of user experience. Window's burden is that it HAS to support everything being such a ubiquitous OS. But Apple never needs to be like that.
Here's what Apple CAN do in terms of stability. Apple can sign a deal, with say, Gateway, Sony, and IBM? Who knows. Apple is HOT now, and the ability to ship an OS X-based PC will be an awesome business asset. Notice how he mentioned that these three were begging him to let them have it. Apple has the buzz, upperhand, highground, everything in this situation especially right now. It has the golden touch. It has a lot of power in dealmaking in this situation.
All they have to do is say to the big three x86 makers is this: You can produce and sell computers with our version of OS X, but we want to have it running on high-quality machines. Remember Apple User Satisfaction is priority number 1 at Apple, and expansion is number 3. So they can tell Sony, for example. We'll port OS:X (assuming it is feasible) but your machines have to use X-brand Ram, and you have to give us a cut in the profits of the machines. That is the price you have to pay because we'll be the ones supporting the software, and we dont' want to support, or have to waste our talent on making things work for crap hardware (Like MS) rather than creating great programs. So they could have a standardized version. Instead of the G6, they could have I6 (running a pentium or whatever) Just one extra hardware configuration that is manufactured by Sony et al. Also to keep market identity.
But in the end... why go through all of those hoops? Apple could just make its own intel boxes with its ported version of MacOS X and tout them as able to run windows as well. Being an intel it could have no problem doing that and plus it would be very useful because it could possibly support windows aplications too, all with Mac style and unchanged ease of use.
However, I imagine that all of this is unlikely. For several reasons. First, from what it sounds like, this would be a huge undertaking, and Apple is just now, apparently getting back on top of things after its huge decline. It mentioned how Jobs was planning on using a software-based approach, but it just had to get things a little bit more organized and streamlined first. So only now he would be in position to start such an undertaking. And what good would it be? Either you destroy the brand association with quality and ease of use through no control of hardware, or create a new line of Macs that could run windows or Mac OS X on an x86. Either way, Apple doesn't need Sony or Gateway to sell them for them. In the end what would be the point if Apple did allow them to produce its the pcs based on their own design? They would outsell Macs because there would be little reason for not having a perfectly normal Mac that can run windows too. Goodbye PowerPC.
The only possibility is through some kind of mixture between the two. Apple could make certain hardware demands while leaving others off. Then you have a situation that may work, but still, it blurs the line between what is a Mac and what isn't, and Apple's image is part of what makes it profitable.
However, it could be an evil plan to port Mac OS X to windows and get it nice and popular and then stop updating it. This would be sneaky as hell and would really piss off a lot of users. Apple can't have one of its main assests (its image) tarnished like that.
On the other hand, they could simply say, "This is your one-time shot, PC world. This is the only version of Mac OS that we are going to make, and the purpose of that is to get you to switch." That could save them credibility and possibly win some converts. But not likely many more than a mini.
In either case there is the "Cell" factor. The predicitons about that thing are all over the map, but somewhere between "Its nothing special", and "it will change the world" is an important point. If this thing will be "os-neutral" as some claim, then what's the point? No point in risking wasting so much money when a new processor will dominate from then on. Stever Jobs obviously knows the score after working with IBM. If Apple does plan on running on the Cell, it could possibly wipe out the windows world anyway. If Windows has something similar then it doesn't matter, you can run Windows and OSX on a cell. It just depends on how strong the MS intel marriage is. If billg wants to stick with a processor that isn't "OS neutral" and Apple has one that is, Apple can go merrily on its way and sell its computers and people who want both, can buy Apples while people who only want windows can stick with intels newest creation.
Of course who knows.... Its probably really hard to do and the implications aren't even nearly forseeable. Steve wouldn't do it unless there was an overarching vision, and not knowing how it will turn out is a big problem there.
|