set OS X free - license out OS X part 3

[thedarkness97]

If Apple were to license OSX, Windows sales would suffer, I am convinced of it. I decided to buy a Mac last week, an ibook G4, first one ever, after being and still being a pc user of 10 years, and I love it. I feel that by not licensing out OSX Apple are being detremental to their own business, and if they "did" license it or "set it free" it would increase their profits 10 fold,

[mrbit10]

i am glad you agree, did you say you got a G4, why such an older model, just curious?

[thedarkness97]

Yup G4...the reason.....Small budget lol

[drers25i]

I kinda with you Mr.Bit, but I like the idael to have muiltple Oses on one computer. Than having two computers (PC and Mac . Some go this route because they are power use or habbiest and this save them some money only have to buy the Os( whether be windows for the Mac or OS X for a PC hackintosh). I'm also into IT and I have some Microsoft certs but would like in to Apple certs also. I would like to one day to own a OS X for the PC (when Apple allows it to happen).

[moniker127]

(rj6v that is)

[matthew376]

Good video!

[rj6v]

And that's why Jobs is multi-billionaire and you're nothing but...I don't know...what? You obviously have no business skills at all when you talk about licencing OS X...sigh.

Stick to what you're good at Bitty, have a nice day.

[mrbit10]

Thanks for the comment, i do not pretend to have better business skills but I agree with those at the time at Apple when they also wanted to license out, the days without the ipods, iphones and online music.

[moniker127]

The idiot who wrote this comment was banned from youtube a few days later.

[tenshitaiakuma]

he may be rich, but gates is richer

[HolidayNova]

people use windows for office and exchange server for business and games at home. Apple needs applications that do that or more. If apple didn't have an OS and made intel hardware I think they wouldn't be doing too bad .. It would be very interesting if apples licensed a 64 bit OS .. I like the idea.. hardware sales would drop a little but more OS sales. people will still want the original apple hardware I think.

[tyranis1]

One of the biggest grips I have with Apple is its product line. I'm a 100% Windows user and I'm very knowledgeable with Windows. As of right now a "switch" to Mac is something I don't want to do, but I want to use Mac in my arsenal to gain more PC knowledge. My grip is that there is not a buffer zone between their desktop lines. The MacMini which is a little under powered and there is the MacPro which is a too much. The iMac is out of question I do not want a screen I have my own.

[njaffar1190]

I agree with you with on everything, but I think the Apple will lose a lot of money if they open up OS X so that it can be installed on other computers besides their own. Main reason is because of pirating. As soon as they release a version of OS X that can be installed on any computer, I bet it will be on bittorrent sites just within a couple of hours.

[tenshitaiakuma]

100 macbooks=100,000 dollers

you could sell cheaper product (OS X)

100,000 OS X copies=13,000,000 dollers

[ThingsontheWeb]

you were featured with this video

[mrbit10]

what do you mean?

[ThingsontheWeb]

You were on youtubes main page as a featured video

[mrbit10]

whoa!!! cool

[ls1z28chris]

I think that if OS X were set free, it would gain market share significantly among people looking for an alternative to Windows. I know several people who would switch to OS X in a heartbeat if it would run on a PC. The problem would be if they could continue to gain ground, or hold a significant share of the market. Would those people who switched stay with OS X? I doubt Apple is willing to find out the answer to that question in this market, or even when Snow Leopard is released.

[roger767]

you're right mr bit, Apple is probably most known now for the iPod and iPhone.

[Norphax]

I knew a girl who had a mac, and had no idea what OSX was, she only booted it in windows XP

[blacksteel25]

I can agree on iChat being one to be released, however I was also thinking of Final Cut Express and Logic Express then having the professional higher grade versions as Mac Only. The iLife suite would stay on Mac side. You still have a demand for Mac's and you just broaden your user base who might get a Mac after using the software.

[carlheanerd]

This debate on licensing OS X is fascinating, I can't wait for responses. On another note on EFI, does the Mid 2007 iMac support ANY 64 bit version of Windows? I try loading the 64 bit version of Windows 7 and it never works loads, it just freezes. 32 bit works like a charm.

[mrbit10]

wow, i know that the mac simulates BIOS, there has to be a bootcamp edition to upgrade to for 64 bit

[UbiquitousGeek]

I just can't say I agree. I'm sorry. Apple is what it is and will never be that company. When you buy an Apple products, you get the Apple experience, which is blissful marriage of hardware and software. You can't separate the two, for any reason. I don't think anyone at Cupertino would ever allow it. If it were a good idea, they would have done it years ago. You know as well as I do that they've been sitting on the Intel version of OS X since the very beginning.

[mrbit10]

but that is just it, the is no more marriage of hardware and software, the intel switch changed it all. I could agree if Macs were still on RISC

[UbiquitousGeek]

It may be that Macs are now using most of the same hardware as Windows PCs, but Apple still goes to great lengths to ensure that it's software works flawlessly on that hardware. That all goes away with OS X being "set free". You also know that when you're working with nothing but Apple hardware, that hardware works perfectly together, whether it be wireless backup with the AirPort Extreme base station or networking with Bonjour.

[mrbit10]

also as in vid 4 there are two major reason why they have not. remember the timeline to release OSX as in how you put it, years ago only goes back to 07 when the intel switch was completed. We have to wait for 64bit full as in snow leopard and OEM compliance to EFI, it has only been two years

[UbiquitousGeek]

No, Apple has always maintained an Intel version of OS X, including versions that booted on PC BIOS. That goes all the way back to NeXTSTEP. Apple could have released OS X for PCs from the very begging. Jobs had offered NeXTSTEP to PC venders (because NeXT was failing), but they refused the high price tag. Michael Dell wanted NeXTSTEP and still wants OS X. Jobs had the chance to dominate the desktop market, but that wasn't his goal.

[mrbit10]

Nextstep 486 is what you refer to, and there is a resason the did not go BIOS but intels EFI from the start, they would not go backwards in code, so no it would be going backwards to use the platform in that copacity rather than have agreements to use certified motherboards. There is nothing unique other than the use of security binaries via the mach0 files which are a protective measure.

[UbiquitousGeek]

Huh? But EFI hasn't been around that long, has it? I mean, OS X had to have been maintained for the BIOS up until some point. How else would they have had an Intel version of each OS X release?

[mrbit10]

also nextstep 486 is mentioned in my 4th vid coming later tonight, i recorded about an hour vid a couple weeks back and had to break it up for time and ended the series with nextstep 486 and my reasons why it has not been done yet.

[UbiquitousGeek]

Don't get me wrong, I'd love to see everyone using OS X, but I don't think this is ever going to happen, legally.

[mrbit10]

they may never release it, i cannot argue what one will do but i can argue the technicals and evidence of those that regret not doing so earlier and that is the point everyone believes every move is a correct one, i am sure if we lived back in the day on youtube 80's we would argue the same things and in hindsight realize not licensing out was a mistake as many of those that lived have stated.

[mrbit10]

*everyone believes every move apple makes that is

*and those that lived the experience such as Woz, Kay, Ian, and the gang I stated.

[UbiquitousGeek]

It was a mistake for Steve Jobs when NeXTSTEP was failing, but luckily Apple bought him out. Today, however, Apple is not a failing company. They're thriving. They're doing great, as is. I don't know that it's worth the risk. We don't know what will really happen if it's set free. All we can do is speculate. All I'm saying is this, "If it ain't broke, don't fix it."

[ASCII808]

its not a marriage of software, and hardware, its just good drivers, with a mach kernel.

[blacksteel25]

I'd rather compromise on this OSX issue of instead setting certain OSX software free rather than OS. Take for example iTunes, this was at one time Mac only. Once Apple opened iTunes to Windows it grew tremendously. If Apple kept iTunes for itself it would of not of taken off. So think about that before you say no way to freed software way.

[UbiquitousGeek]

I agree, somewhat. I think they would have to be careful about which titles they ported to Windows. For example, iChat would be a great candidate. Seamless communication between Macs and PCs with iChat's video quality. iMovie? Bad idea. That's one of the shining stars that drives consumers towards the Macintosh. If you ask me, I think iChat is the only other application that I'd like to see ported. Maybe if they were to turn iWeb into a real web design application, it could go, too.

[ThingsontheWeb]

Very nice points Mrbit. Most people I know, MOST, don't know anything but the price that is on the tag.

Imagine if HP sold an 800 dollar PC, and gave the customer the option. Windows or OS10. Most customers would say what's the difference?, and the sales person would say " OS10 is easier and more reliable." Even the most uneducated person would find the choice between Windows an OS10 very simple.

[mrbit10]

ahhh, thanks for that, i could actually see what you described, i wait for that day.

[brimestone]

You have delevered what i was trying to spit out for a long period of time..

[garrettlove101]

Hey Mrbit. Great video. I got back from Israel early today, some time around 6:30 AM.

[mrbit10]

outstanding and how was it?

[thomashome05]

As I said before this is good/bad. It is bad because the developer cannot know what hardware they are developing from. It's good because they can make profit!

[UbiquitousGeek]

I switched just before the Intel switch. If you ask me, it had more to do with OS X. Tiger was a great operating system. A lot of people bought their first Macs when Tiger came out, in that short period before the Intel switch. I think it had a lot to do with people seeing, using and hearing about OS X. I hadn't seen OS X until I saw the first Mac mini at Best Buy. That was my first Mac.

[mrbit10]

you are not part of the numbers of consumers i am arguing about, i am only speaking about post intel and the massive skew in the trendline, you are considered a mac base consumer.

[DRBUK]

i mean, u can see the focus change from apple. from there computers to small devices, such as ipods, iphones

[mrbit10]

i think the market is responding, this is the pattern that apple had in the 90's where innovation has a bloom in macs via the intel switch but how long can it hold at those number is my issue. gadgets are the end of the day for Apple, no doubt.

[DRBUK]

to be honest, i think the last few quarters of profit was made from ipods and iphones.

[mrbit10]

if in macs via revenue, laptops have been dominating since the intel switch, desktops have not come close.

For 2008, ipods are the largest with 28% Laptops, 26%

but for the broad picture all macs = 43% the rest goes to iphone, ipod/music.

For 2007 the iphone did not really exist for much of the year, but ipods were 35% without music rev

[mrbit10]

the funny thing is, even in 09 apple made more money year on year with 08 to 09 and ipods went up year on year sold 11.1 million vs macs 2.2 million macs. The breakdown though goes that the profit margins on Mac desktops is larger than the laptops but the laptops are the kind Mac selling vs the desktop.

[DRBUK]

lol yep, thats what i been thinking for a very long time, apple are a hardware company, but since leopard came out, ive kinda seen them as a software company.

[mrbit10]

thanks for commenting DRBUK, I would say that before OSX they had a great OS in the early 90's with OS 7 but they were locked in by RISC. The intel switch has changed everything, i mean everything. They actually put there hardware within direct competition with other OEMs because they are now x86. Jobs made NeXT a software company, call me crazy but I believe when all is in place the same will be for OSX, i state this in my 4th vid coming soon.

[5N19ERG0D]

hi mrbit10 i am buying a destop pc which company would u suggest HP or Dell if u need more info plz reply thankyou. plz reply

[mrbit10]

we have had very good luck with HP at my work.

[5N19ERG0D]

people buy os10 because it givs them the option to use os10 and vista and by having the people buy mac. how ever now if u want to buy a destop from mac say an imac, they are repin u of because u can get a quad core pc for that much with alot better specs.

[blacksteel25]

Aye I'm mostly impressed too with Windows 7, it hasn't BSOD once on my 4 year old computer and it runs like I had WinXP installed on it. As far as I've read the GDI (Graphics Development Interface) was redone to help with Graphical responsiveness when multiple applications are running. Prior to this redone of GDI applications would bottleneck waiting it's turn to show up on the screen. So yeah I do think Win 7 will be great, however they need to work on the WinXP mode more.

[dragonballjiujitsu]

I'll have a video response in the works. Some of your arguments don't hold up. You say people would still buy Macs even if they did not come with OS X? This is just not true and I don't even think you believe that.

Would you buy Macs if they all came with Vista? NO and you know you wouldn't. Neither would anyone else who got a Mac to get away from Windows. Thats a large % of new Mac users.

[mrbit10]

wow, this is a major part of the argument that yes you buy a mac because of hardware as well. You have to answer why to the other questions before dismissing it. Why not buy a mac on hardware alone?

[dragonballjiujitsu]

"Why not buy a mac on hardware alone? "

Because I can go to wal-mart and get a $298 PC with XP on it? The quality wont be the same but for what I would pay for a Mac I could buy one every 3 months.

I got the Mac because of OS X as I'm sure most Mac users did, the better quality was just a plus.

[mrbit10]

but that is just it, so many buy a myriad of different price range PCs for whatever reason, there is no one set path a consumer takes or economists and planners for consumer action would be in one book. I would buy a mac on hardware alone, no doubt, they are the only OEM I really trust with QC and design. Man they have made awesome hardware.

[SourceZombie]

But you could buy a $1,200 computer like I did and run Ubuntu and Windows on it and I've had my computer for about 4 years now and have't had to spend a single dime more on it since then other than buying certain software.

[AppleSoldier]

his arguments wont hold water under close examination, i making a vid too. This is just wrong to say people would still buy macs. THATS PURE SPECULATION. Histroy shows us different then he excuses that away too by talking about 1995 numbers etc. its all theory and wishful thining. thers way to many issues he hasnt addressed to many thngs are not "took care" of which i have no time in comments to list.

[mrbit10]

articles and numbers are fact not speculation.

[dragonballjiujitsu]

Saying that you think people would still buy Mac hardware because of the build quality is pure speculation.

Also on the topic of "cheap" Lets look at how many sub $500 computers sale per year vs over $1,000 computers. Cheaper computers are more popular for many reasons.

Again, some of your arguments are good in theory but wont hold up in the real world.

[mrbit10]

If what I say is speculation that they would buy, it is also the same that they would not buy. Where were the surplus consumers in 2001 to 2006 when OSX existed? Today many feel fine getting a mac because they can run windows. As for cheap, you make my point. There are consumers who buy for whatever reason, I am not saying one is more popular over the other, people buy luxury items or whatever, the PC market shows this, thus the same consumption to get a mac for whatever consumer reason.

[mrbit10]

also, if one is never going to get a mac via price point, that is a zero sale, but you could gain a sale from the license of the OS. I really appreciate your discussion dragon and keeping it civil, thank you for that and please be sure to make sure your vid is in response to mine.  take care.

[gr1moire2112]

Well I would buy a Mac because of the hardware. In fact I did, I bought a Macbook because I wanted a portable machine for traveling and found net books and other laptops basically cheap. On the other hand I have other Macs for other reasons and some PCs. I also would not buy a cheap PC, to get a good quality machine I am looking at similar prices to a Mac, so yes I would buy a Mac even to run Windows. Would everybody, probably not. People buy Porsches, people buy Volkswagens its a choice.

[mrbit10]

well said, thanks!!!

[ps3gamer164]

i know this isn't related but seriously, i want to know how you bypassed the 10 minute youtube upload limit, and i do agree they should have a mid tower.

[ASCII808]

He is a Youtube partner.

[discovercs]

Go to channel design option, channel type and choose director, musician, guru etc all allow more the 10Min upload. option you tuber is the only that doesn't allow you that.

[aget19]

does he mean 11.5 MILLION. i dont think there would be 11.5 billion computers sold. especially in 1994

[ASCII808]

I think he meant in sales. 11.5 billion dollars in sales.

[mrbit10]

that is correct, 11.5 billion

[ASCII808]

Yeah, I was wondering what would be the market for the "free" Pc's with Mac osx? Would it be in every form factor, or only a the mid-tower category?

Great video.

[joanindo]

agree