[HOM]

I know, I know. The issue of Mac OS for Intel boxes as beaten to death since the 80's and as of yet, we've never seen a Star Trek (look it up you youngin's) release. Could that all change? I'm not going to argue the merits, but the new Forbes article on Apple has some interesting tidbits:

The technology is so solid that Apple is beginning to sell Macs into markets that never before would even consider them, like the military and university supercomputer centers. Most tantalizing of all is scuttlebutt that three of the biggest PC makers are wooing Jobs to let them license OS X and adapt it to computers built around standard Intel chips. Why? They want to offer customers, many of whom are sick of the security problems that go with Windows and tired of waiting for Longhorn, an alternative. And besides, Apple has buzz now, and Microsoft does not.

We can count Dell out of it seeing as they are Microsoft's bitch in every way. HP could and should be one. IBM could and should be the second wooer. Who is the third? Sony? This doesn't seem to be one of those "I found a drunk Apple employee at a bar near Cupertino" rumors. Forbes just seems a tad bit more reliable than the Mac Rumor Mongers.

The article is a nice read. Mostly the same fluff we've heard for years, but some choice quotes from Steve and other tech people.

Linky to view the article, go to sign in, type in 188066379. It returned an error for me, but let me view the article anyway.

[Brad]

Oh dear... not this again...

Anyhow, here's the whole article for folks to read without logging in and clicking through the Fortune site.

[The Return of the 'nut]

that's a very interesting excerpt. It raises many questions. I think Apple is in a very criticiall situation right now. They have the chance to make major inroads on marketshare if they make the right decisions. They have financial stability and can certainly take a risk, even a large one. This could be their 2nd chance at making the licensing decision. They said no the first time and it hurt them, would they make the same mistake twice?

I think Apple loves controlling the whole widget but I think they are certainly more of a software company than ever now. With licensing fees they could generate huge revenue. I think their hardware right now is nearly different and unique enough to still stand out from the pc crowd if both were running OS X.

I think we might see OS X on Intel soon.

[hmurchison]

Microsoft would NOT like that.

[Brad]

Originally Posted by The Return of the 'nut I think we might see OS X on Intel soon.

If Apple "adapted" and licensed Mac OS X to run on the x86 (Intel) platform, though, it would have to be an all-or-none move, it would alienate and leave out in the cold a lot of the existing user base, and it would create a huge software gap.

Why all-or-none? Software. Software. Software. It wouldn't be so hard in theory getting OS X ported to x86. Darwin is already there. But what good is an OS without any software?

Let's not forget that all third-party software would have to be recompiled (at best) or scrapped and rewritten (at worst) for these new computers. Unless Apple gave the developers a huge head-start, there would be nothing available for these new machines at launch.

Even with the head-start, though, developers would have three options: compile for PowerPC, compile for x86, or compile for both. Such a possibility would terribly fragments the user base. Program A may work fine on both Bob's Apple Mac and Susan's HP Mac, but Program B only runs on Bob's Mac and Program C only runs on Susan's Mac. Try explaining the reasoning behind that to technophobes.

Clones, on the other hand, present an entirely different situation. If the PC manufacturers could use the PPC architecture, none of this would be a problem. Then it would be strictly a game of politics.

[JayReding]

As much as OS X on Intel might seem like a great business move, it really isn't.

Apple's margins aren't in software, they're in hardware. Licensing OS X would cannibalize sales of Apple-manufactured hardware and reduce overall profits. That's why Apple killed the clone manufacturers in the 90s.

Second, the reason why Apple machines are so much better than PCs is because Apple has total control over the hardware. They don't deal with a whole host of budget components made by random companies that may or may not be stable in a given configuration. Apple designs the hardware and the software works brilliantly in concert with that hardware.

To move to Intel would require Apple to design for a huge array of different hardware types, which is a major pain to do. Look at the state of Linux device drivers - and Apple would be starting from virtually square one from there.

Now granted, Apple does have a version of OS X running on Intel already (Marklar), and porting the Darwin core is relatively easy. Technically, porting OS X to Intel would be a piece of cake. But just because you can do something doesn't mean you should.

Apple has a very specific and very well-organized business plan that doesn't involve licensing OS X to PC manufacturers. Doing that would be against both Apple's business plan and marketing as well as their corporate culture. Apple isn't in the commodity computer business, they're selling a very specific suite of solutions - which is why we haven't seen a Mac mini until now.

[HOM]

I agree in principal with Brad that going the Intel route will lead to fragmentation, but what if that is what Apple and their partners want.

I can only imagine that the impetus behind three vendors looking to Apple is not for iLife compatibility, but because their large lucrative corporate contracts are balking at yet another round of Windows upgrades. Linux on the desktop is just not there yet and there is no real indication that it will be there any time soon. That leaves OSX.

Now, why would the software issue be a non-issue? Because the apps that are going to be written for OSX on Intel would not be apps that regular Mac users are going to want or need. Would Apple need to port the Altivec heavy iLife apps to OSX for Intel? I don't really think that some middle manager is going to need to edit movies nor will their bosses want them to be.

For the most part Apple software, sans the OS, would have no real place on a corporate desktop. The real issue comes down to two things. Will Microsoft 'port'/recompile Office for Intel. I think they would. MS might lose the Windows license, but they keep the Office license. It's better than losing both of them. The second issue is will software companies port their Windows software to OSX for Intel? Again, I'm not talking about the dozens of winamp clones, but real honest to goodness software. I think that's the real gamble. But, software vendors will go where the boxes are and if HP/IBM installs hundreds of thousands of OSX boxes there is an instant market.

[Brad]

Speaking of porting software, how soon is too soon for Apple to make such a request?

It was eight years ago (yes, 1997!) that Apple put out the Carbon API and started encouraging developers to carbonize software. Mac OS X wasn't officially shipping until 2001. Adobe and Microsoft weren't ready for more than a year after OS X's release. Quark wasn't shipping for another year!

Granted, "porting" to different CPU architecture with the same OS should be as simple as recompiling. At least, it is in theory.

[sCreeD]

Wow, this again? Hm...

To push OS X as a complete kit (iLife and so on, beyond just a bootable OS), what Apple would really need to push to the x86 is Carbon/Cocoa.

Questions abound: hardware drivers? Apple does one graphics chipset in-house and they're not that great, compared to the same chipset on DirectX/Windows. And that's just video cards. So would the licensees hire driver developers or have their OEMs write them?

I don't know. It just seems to be a colossal mountain to move. It might be great for mindshare, but this seems to be a "nuclear option" for Apple. The resulting entities would be Apple Software and Apple Electronics (read: iPod'n'Stuff).

Screed

[autodata]

IMO, OS X on intel would defeat the purpose

Originally Posted by JayReding Apple's margins aren't in software, they're in hardware.

I've seen this mentioned for years, but I don't think I've ever seen figures. Got any?

[InactionMan]

From the article:

OS X has already gone through four versions, named Cheetah, Puma, Jaguar, and Panther. It's a tactic that Microsoft and other software makers have tried with much less success�Windows users in particular have grown leery of the chronic computer crashes and conflicts between programs that its upgrades cause. Apple engineered ways to minimize such problems. The upgrades also fuel Apple's computer hardware business, which still accounts for 60% of annual sales.

Doesn't mention margins, but 40% of revenue from software isn't too bad and wouldn't be catastrophic given the increase in scale of catering to the Intel world.

[InactionMan]

Bah. I don't think 40% is software. It's everything else, including the iPod platform.

I do think that Apple needs to consider partnering with another company like Sony or HP for an x86 version of OS X or (assuming IBM could puke out enough chips) let other companies make PPC computers that can run OS X. If they want to drastically increase their market share they cannot go it alone.

[BenRoethig]

Originally Posted by HOM I know, I know. The issue of Mac OS for Intel boxes as beaten to death since the 80's and as of yet, we've never seen a Star Trek (look it up you youngin's) release. Could that all change? I'm not going to argue the merits, but the new Forbes article on Apple has some interesting tidbits: We can count Dell out of it seeing as they are Microsoft's bitch in every way. HP could and should be one. IBM could and should be the second wooer. Who is the third? Sony? This doesn't seem to be one of those "I found a drunk Apple employee at a bar near Cupertino" rumors. Forbes just seems a tad bit more reliable than the Mac Rumor Mongers. The article is a nice read. Mostly the same fluff we've heard for years, but some choice quotes from Steve and other tech people. Linky to view the article, go to sign in, type in 188066379. It returned an error for me, but let me view the article anyway.

Two of the three are definately HP and Sony. I think the third is Gateway though.

[Brad]

Originally Posted by InactionMan I don't think 40% is software.

You are correct. Software doesn't come close to 40%. In fact, that number is downright laughable!

Net Revenue for 2004:

Macintosh: $4,923,000,000 (~60%)
iPod: $1,306,000,000 (~16%)
Other music products: $278,000,000 (~3%)
Peripherals and Other Hardware: $951,000,000 (~11%)
Software: $502,000,000 (~6%)
Service and other sales: $319,000,000 (~4%)
-------------------------
Total: $8,279,000,000

With nearly 90% of revenue coming from hardware sales, I think it's a safe bet that, yes, Apple is still a "hardware company."

[Electric Monk]

I doubt that they will port over. It would take years and developers who almost dumped them over OS X would probably dump them over this. As for not porting over iLife (and others) then why not some flavor of Linux running OpenOffice for barebones but secure systems?

However.

I could see Sony and maybe IBM/Leveno (with their new Cell chip) getting an OS X license and in a year or two dumping their Windows computers for Cell computers running OS X. That at least makes some sense. If of course it is part of Apple's plan to use the Cell chip in some way.

[Jim S.]

What if the rumor is true but they have the facts mixed up. What if Apple licenses OS-X to run on computers that use cell processors? What it the other three companies involved had initials STI? Wouldn't that be an interesting coincidence. After all, "great software is the glue that gets the maximum value out of the great hardware". Right?

Many people and companies do not take Apple or OS-X seriously since it is a closed system. Opening it up could signal a huge opportunity for market growth and progress in corporate America. When IBM sold their PC business, they agreed to stay out of that market for five years. Is it clear whether this would be the PC market?

Keep in mind that Apple could sell software to the people who buy STI computers. Steve has said for years that he wants Apple to increase their software sales.

EDIT: Just noticed that Electric Monk and I were thinking the same thing

[dglow]

Originally Posted by Brad With nearly 90% of revenue coming from hardware sales, I think it's a safe bet that, yes, Apple is still a "hardware company."

But, as you say, Brad, that's just revenue. It's a fairly certain bet that Apple's software sales constitute more than 6% of Apple's profits. I'm not disputing that Apple is a hardware company (they are), just pointing out that when it comes to margins software has the edge over hardware.

Licensing, if done carefully, could work to Apple's financial advantage. Duplicating bits onto hard drives is zero added overhead.

[Brad]

Originally Posted by dglow just pointing out that when it comes to margins software has the edge over hardware.

But where's the proof? One could just as easily say that Apple's hardware has 100 times the margin that its software has.

[dglow]

Originally Posted by Brad But where's the proof? One could just as easily say that Apple's hardware has 100 times the margin that its software has.

Yes, of course, one could say anything. I chose not to in this case.

Proof? I don't understand. Do you wish me to break into Apple and steal their financial documents? What would satisfy your need for "proof"?

The only certainty I can offer is my word, which you are welcome to take or leave. Obviously, the best I can do is extrapolate data and observations from my personal experience, apply these to the question at hand (Apple), and form some conclusions from that, which is exactly what I did.

That said, my word is backed by many years of experience in the software industry. Having worked on several consumer electronics-level mixed hardware-software projects, I do feel comfortable in asserting that software offers dramatically lower startup costs and, hence, profit margins. I think you'll find this assertion is generally considered a rule of thumb or 'conventional wisdom' in the industry.

So please don't take my word for it since, alas, I can offer you no "proof".

[Frank777]

Originally Posted by BenRoethig Two of the three are definately HP and Sony. I think the third is Gateway though.

Gateway was excited and ready to deliver Mac clones back in the clone days.
Apple didn't grant the license because they weren't sure they could compete with them. (This was back when Apple has a gazillon models and no real market focus.)

Apple won't go into X86 licenses, because of the obvious and aforementioned software vacuum.

I've always said that cloning is a valid option if Apple is selling bundles of OS Licenses AND the motherboards. Anything else requires Apple to do too much free R&D for cloners, and will fail just like last time.

[dglow]

That's an excellent point, Frank. Making motherboards 'part of the deal' would help Apple realize better economies of scale for the components in their own computers, too.

Wow. If (when?) IBM starts selling OS X-based machines into the enterprise (they have to transition all those OS/2 users onto something) the ground is going to shake from the collective tremors of everyone in Redmond.

Damn, that will be a beautiful day.

[RC23]

24 Years and OS X will be out for Intel based chips.


but lets hope next tuesday, like everything.

[Daveydweeb]

Originally Posted by Brad But where's the proof? One could just as easily say that Apple's hardware has 100 times the margin that its software has.

...or that its software has 100 times the margin that is hardware has. Its all the same useless gaff being kicked back and forth.

Although, it'd be interesting to see what Apple's software margins were like when they were forced to develop for Intel (and therefore build a system capable of working seemlessly with the [b]bajillion[/n] different hardware combinations on x86). It seems to me that the software could either be a crappy, slapped-together OS X lookalike (OS X ME, anyone?), or a decently put together with with some extremely generic drivers.

Either way, there's no way in hell Apple could make enough profit in the short term to justify the loss of hardware sales that could result.

[Baron Munchausen]

With Cell coming and Longhorn bull I would say the entire x86 world is at risk, but seeing as G5 had a speed/power speedhump, not speedbump, waving the Intel club at IBM by making OSX run on the chipin the lab is just sensible. I am sure intel chips could (and can) run OSX but I doubt if it will be written to run on the entire CHIPSET that underpins the PC "mother"-board world for reasons given elsewhere.

[epicuresquire]

Dear God,

Please make it so. Amen.

epi

[chucker]

Originally Posted by dglow just pointing out that when it comes to margins software has the edge over hardware.

Apple's software? Are you kidding?

Nothing inside Apple is so heavily subsidized as their software. If iLife and iWork, but also their Pro applications suite, aren't any clue to you, then I don't know what is. Think cutting Shake's price in half after buying the software. Think Log Pro being half as expensive as Logic Platinum, yet containing plug-ins that used to up the price to about three times as much. And FinalCut Pro containing Cinema Tools and Soundtrack, yet staying at the same price. FinalCut Express? Just a month ago, Soundtrack alone cost two thirds of its price, and that's not even the main feature.

Apple's software is priced to be more than just competitive.

[BuonRotto]

Hm, aside from all that business and financial mumbo jumbo, isn't this just proving that Apple has a real opportunity with its own hardware? Also, aren't we ignoring what Jobs and Apple have been doing for the last 8 years? Jobs isn't going to toss out the whole widget mantra he's repeated his entire life because other people want to be in his position. The only time he succumbed to this strategy is when his hardware flat-out failed. Given the success of the iPod, and the opportunity to do something similar with the Mac (however unlikely), does anyone really think that Apple is enticed by these guys who want a piece of their pie?

[thequicksilver]

With the release of the Mac mini, such a strategy would seem to lack, well, any kind of coherent strategy.

That said, I'd like to see a Sony or IBM - another big name basically - make PPC computers that run Mac OS X. The OS X on Intel doesn't seem to be a goer.

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.

[oldmacfan]

I have found proof of X on Intel

http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=21367