Setting OS X free, Do we really want that? 2

[gcrav]

Sorry Bud, bashing Vista just doesn't hold water for a lot of people and it's not a good strategy to strengthen the brand of OSX. Mrbit10 is as dedicated a fan of OSX as you are, but at least he provides some objectivity on the legacy challenges MS has with Windows and the major progress represented by Vista/7. To make an omelet you've got to break some eggs (in this case compatibility with obsolete software and drivers).

[dragonballjiujitsu]

I'm not anti Windows. I still like XP and I like Windows 7  a lot. Check out the mini review I did on 7.

[macheads101]

The entire fun of Linux is finding drivers and stuff to make everything work!!!

[dragonballjiujitsu]

Maybe for you. Most people just want their computer to work so they can do stuff on it.

[B1U3P5YCH0]

8800tx tri sli is in my mai uncles pc lol one 8800gtx cost €600 thats around £750 and he has three of thm ::D:D:D:D:D:

[dragonballjiujitsu]

And thank you for proving my point. Apples hardware sells would fall through the floor because most people feel that way.

[Zenn3k]

I have an interesting argument for ya dragon.  You (and others) have said multiple times, if OSX was set free, people would only buy $300 PCs to run it on. If thats true, then why does Apple sell any model besides the Mini? Within your reasoning, the Mini should be the ONLY mac the sells, its not, its not even the most popular. If people will spend extra money for a certain style/design/ease now, why would that change if OSX was available on the PC?

[dragonballjiujitsu]

I did not say everyone would. There will always be a place for the high end PC. Look at some of the boutique desktop computers selling for 4-6 grand these days. But, that market is very small. Most people who what a very high end system build their own ( no Apple hardware sell there ), but the major percentage of people buy bargain PCs. You know this as well as I do because we both work on them every day. I'd say 98% of what I get in the shop are computer that costs less than $500 new.

[macward66]

well, apple mainly sells higher end computers, most people that want a cheaper mac will go ahed and get the imac. It is actually pretty smart and a lot of businesses do that to attract to the higher end models. Its like Canon dslr cameras, they make a underpowered base line model that doesnt break the bank account and people will a lot of times upgrade to the higher end models later on. saturating the market with apple-like cheap computers with potential problems is not a good idea

[macward66]

if people get a bad tase in their mouth they wont ever buy the better models.

[dragonballjiujitsu]

Exactly, they will just think the OS sucks.

[Zenn3k]

Thats a rather large assumption, to think Apple would allow OSX to have so many problems (which would far far less than people imagine it would be) is insanity. OSX is Apple's baby, they wouldn't make the mistakes required for OSX to run so poorly. There is no standard in which to make that assumption either, hacked OSX versions run fine for the most part, there only problems stem from the fact OSX had to be hacked to make it run in the first place.

[dragonballjiujitsu]

Apple would not allow their OS to have so many problems? Do you think Microsoft wants Windows to suck? Once it leaves the factory its out of their hands.

You are right about one thing. OS X is apples baby. That is why they are suing psystar. That is also why I don't think I'll have to worry about the problem that an open OS X would bring anytime soon.

[Zenn3k]

You cannot compare how Microsoft operates as a company to how Apple operates as a company. There are basic fundamental differences to how they do business. This should be obvious

[dragonballjiujitsu]

obvious. oh, you mean like how Setting OS X free would hurt apple hardware sells. That kind of obvious?

[Zenn3k]

I give up on you. Please, show me something that supports this claim. That fact that people buy sub $500 PCs is not evidence that Apple would lose hardware sales. If that person would never have bought a mac anyway, then buy OSX for their PC, how does that hurt hardware sales? In both cases the Mac is NOT purchased, but in 1 of the cases, $130+ is spent in software. 130 > 0, and somehow this hurts profit margins? The logic does not fit man.

[dragonballjiujitsu]

This is something we will never agree on so, I'll be the bigger man here and shut up. Unless apple opens up OS X neither you or me will know what will happen.

[dragonballjiujitsu]

And one of those basic fundamentals is not making the OS available to put on PCs.

[keytoothed]

Performance.

[Zenn3k]

Exactly keytoothed, people would still pay for that performance level of an actual Mac, there market would remain, while there marketshare and software sales would grow grow grow.

[jackatmac32]

mmm i think your premise is false. you're thinking about the old apple model where their hardware (and by hardware here i mean computers) were the company's main revenue source. but that model is no longer valid. today, music products and services (!! yes it's true) represent almost 40% of apples total income.

We're dealing with a different company today and that will change even more with worldwide iphone release.

[jackatmac32]

that's just my opinion anyway...

but i find it disturbing that u guys are so sure about OSX not being released.

i've had macs my entire life and today i'm really concerned. that's because my computer company is way too interested in selling phones. don't get me wrong, i love the phones but i love my computers much more.

the point here is that i'm not so sure about anything anymore when apple is the subject.

[dragonballjiujitsu]

Actually I agree with you about it being disturbing that they are branching out into phones/music/ect. Look what happened to Microsoft when the branched out, their OS went to hell.

[keytoothed]

I think it's fascinatng that Ballmer made veiled comments about MicroSoft making its own machines. Why? To compete with Apple, and to destroy MS's image (which is true) that the system is buggy because so many OEMs are doing their own things, loading their own crapware. But I think this was a bullshit comment, made to boost MS's stock, which has been stagnant for the past EIGHT YEARS. They covet Apple's growth. Let's face it: it's a zero-sum game. Apple's leverage is its hardware. Period.

[jackatmac32]

you have good points, but i'll have to disagree here.

i don't want to see OSX on a PC, but eventually it's going to happen. Right now, apple's money and efforts are going to iphone, ipod and the music business, but make no mistakes, it's all numbers here. all about money. always.

The right time to release OSX will come, and apple WILL take advantage of it. It's a $15 bi / quarter market waiting to be shared and there is no logic reason for apple to stay away from it.

[musicalmike235]

I like Linux, but dragonballjiujitsu is right about hardware incompatibilities in Linux. Don't believe me? Try to get a bcm44 series wireless card to work in 64 bit Ubuntu.

[mrbit10]

I also wanted to add that multi-touch and other Apple only features would also continue to keep Apple competitive. Have faith in Apple competing openly, have faith in OSX.

[emeek77]

but pc version of osx would be lacking. dont you get it. keep competitive, bullshit. people would expect all features on pc as mac. apple would get blamed even if it isnt there fault. they cant guarantee it will work on all combos and oyu still never answerd me. WHY do you want osx on a pc? what do you want that for?

[mrbit10]

there are so many contradictions within the Mac community 1. being price, 2. being that gamers are a small niche but then become bigger for the purposes of protecting Apple hardware.

Quality control has to do with the process of which the product is made. UNIX, OS X are built and get modded, no worries it will run.

Linux is open community your complaints are based on the cons of the open community.

[emeek77]

all you say is no worries it will run.. yea right. so you guarantee osx will work out of box with ANY pc i put together? You just say it will work but you never give us a reason why. like i said, would it work on ANY pc i throw at it like it will any mac? if it wouldnt work on just one hadware combo without the customer having to download or fix something wouldnt be good enough. not to apple.

[keytoothed]

Mr. Bit, I have a lot of respect for you, but still haven't taken into account that one pesky point: that OS X is stable because the hardware it runs on is closed and controlled. This is cornerstone of our argument (I think). You, personally, will always feel like you could work out any kink, but that's your career. Apple's support IS part of the package, just as much as the OS, and that goes out the window the moment they hand it over to some third party. S'all I'm saying. Peace.

[mrbit10]

Now, I am sorry OS X will not have any more or less issues than it would on Apple hardware. Software controls and runs the hardware, there is no way to get around it.

As to answer your question about Apple hardware, all of my vids have shwon that there is a big % of Apple hardware that does not match the OS X market share. OS X is lagging behind. That means Apple hardware is running Windows so that already says people like Mac just for the hardware in many cases.

[dragonballjiujitsu]

No, what that says is that people are locked into Windows both because of compatibility and habit.

A good example of this is a college professor my wife has this year. The school got all of the professors Macbook pros, With bootcamp running XP Pro dual boot.When asked about this by my wife the professor replied that he had been using windows for years and just did not want to change. He never gave OS X a shot.

Like it or not OS X is the main reason people chose Mac over PC.

[mrbit10]

Regardless, the statistics do not show that and OS X lost market share last month while Apple hardware climbed, yet again. Without a viable competing software base to match, OS X cannot fight back, and it cannot fight if not released.

[emeek77]

it dont neeed to fight. You have no facts either. you say statics show market share was lost is you side stepping the point. People use windows on a mac because they are locked. And THEY DONT MAKE MONEY ON THE OS. hardware sales would suffer, APPLE EVEN SAYS THIS. they are out to sell MACS not osx. it may be good for you but not apple and you cant see this because your so blinded by what you want.

[emeek77]

you have flawed logic dude. if you think it wouldnt have more issues than i dont get you. There are millions of hardware combos on a pc and ther is no way mac would work OUT OF BOX with all of them. DO you not understand this?

[emeek77]

apple dont want osx to grow, they want there hardware market share to grow. Thats why FCS is mac only, so studios will switch to mac. Thats why we have bootcamp, so pc users will buy macs. Everything they do is aimed at selling MAC COMPUTERS not increasing osx market share.

[dragonballjiujitsu]

Exactly, they use their software such as FCS and OS X to sell the Macs. Because again, Apple is a hardware company.

[mrbit10]

Right but OSX is not gaining as fast as the hardware. The "IFs" can be spun in circles, most end up on bootcamp or VM, I see it all the time and frown. OS X cannot grow with out more developers and the developers will not come without a bigger user base.