Do you think Apple would release their OS for normal PCs?

[Martial-law]

Just saw the osx86 thread and the thing came to my mind is that may be Apple may release its next OS called OS X Snow Leopard for normal PCs too. They may well release a PC version too. And there seems to be many hints for that. So what do you think would they do such a thing? I dont think it would make a bad impact for Linux since it has its own strengths, but it would certainly be interesting to see Windows monopoly collapse since it would almost surely make a huge impact for Windows.:guitar:

[kevin11951]

actually, they "hint" at moving their OS to all pc's every time they are working on a new release...

[EdThaSlayer]

Has Apple inc. really become that desperate? Wouldn't this "destroy" their monopoly on Apple computers? If this did happen, expect a lot of pcs to crash and many complaints, because since Apple doesn't make the pc's of the world, something is bound to happen.

[Warpnow]

If OSX went to all PCs it would be worse than Windows.

1. It would have loads of bugs from conflicting hardware.

2. People would develop viruses and spyware if it went mainstream.

3. They would not make anywhere near as much money because companies like Compaq, Hp, ect, would sell "Macs" for under $500.

[mellowd]

Won't happen. If so there would be no reason to splash out for their expensive hardware

[Martial-law]

Agree with you all with that. Why would Apple do that when they are earning a lot with their own hardware. But I am also feeling the smell that something is going to happen and soon about their OS. May be! Only Apple knows what they are up to.:confused:

[aysiu]

Considering Apple is in the process of suing Psystar for selling Mac OS X on non-Apple computers, I highly doubt it. Apple is primarily a hardware company that also sells software. It isn't a software company that happens to sell hardware.

It wants to sell Apple computers and iPods. Mac OS X is just a way to sell more Apple computers, as is Parallels' ability to run Windows on Apple computers. iTunes for Windows is just a way to sell more iPods.

Of course, you can rarely ever say "never" when it comes to business. Corporations like Apple and Microsoft are all about profits and shareholders. So if Apple thinks it's profitable to release OS X under a less restrictive license, they may do that. They did, after all, port Safari to Windows... not that that has helped them in any way...

[EnGorDiaz]

Has Apple inc. really become that desperate? Wouldn't this "destroy" their monopoly on Apple computers? If this did happen, expect a lot of pcs to crash and many complaints, because since Apple doesn't make the pc's of the world, something is bound to happen.

nor does microsfot make the pcs of the world its hard working wholesalers like myself we joke at my work about microsoft being so faulty so really microsoft is and always is just as faulty you know why its because of the user not us

[EnGorDiaz]

nor does microsfot make the pcs of the world its hard working wholesalers like myself we joke at my work about microsoft being so faulty so really microsoft is and always is just as faulty you know why its because of the user not us

like lately i have been down the path of the salesmen if apple were to do this then yes it would destroy there monopoly and also destroy there "integrity" :lolflag:

[EnGorDiaz]

from this page are apple going to release it for pcs? no, just no i like apple products and all but i would like i they stayed in the status-quo

http://www.apple.com/macosx/snowleopard/

[EnGorDiaz]

Considering Apple is in the process of suing Psystar for selling Mac OS X on non-Apple computers, I highly doubt it. Apple is primarily a hardware company that also sells software. It isn't a software company that happens to sell hardware.

It wants to sell Apple computers and iPods. Mac OS X is just a way to sell more Apple computers, as is Parallels' ability to run Windows on Apple computers. iTunes for Windows is just a way to sell more iPods.

Of course, you can rarely ever say "never" when it comes to business. Corporations like Apple and Microsoft are all about profits and shareholders. So if Apple thinks it's profitable to release OS X under a less restrictive license, they may do that. They did, after all, port Safari to Windows... not that that has helped them in any way...

it didnt thats how windows won the pwn2win contest

[dodle]

that's a lot of smileys

[jrusso2]

If OSX went to all PCs it would be worse than Windows.

1.
3. They would not make anywhere near as much money because companies like Compaq, Hp, ect, would sell "Macs" for under $500.

Strange I wonder how Microsoft got to be ten times bigger selling just software then Apple?

[jrusso2]

Apple missed their chance with the failure of Vista to capture a huge percentage of the desktop market.

Both HP and Dell came to them and begged for OS X.

I am sure this is due to some long standing agreement with Microsoft that Apple will not produce an Operating system for regular PC's

[EdThaSlayer]

nor does microsfot make the pcs of the world its hard working wholesalers like myself we joke at my work about microsoft being so faulty so really microsoft is and always is just as faulty you know why its because of the user not us

Nice answer, but there's a difference. Microsoft main purpose was to make their OS for all the hardware, even though Apple could probably pull it off, it doesn't have the experience Microsoft has when it comes to dealing with all the hardware guys out there. I think, at least.:)

[dizee]

they make too much money from the hardware side for this to happen.

plus, all of a sudden OS X wouldn't "just work".

not going to happen anytime soon in my opinion.

[mips]

Of course, you can rarely ever say "never" when it comes to business.

Apple has actually licensed their OS to other hardware manufacturers in the past. This gave rise to a bunch of Mac clones back in the day when they still uses System x on 680x0 hardware.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Macintosh_clone

To build a apple clone is very easy these days, just select your components very carefully and besides for the efi bios you will have a fully functional hackintosh.

[bashveank]

Not as long as Steve Jobs is the CEO. The first thing he did when he came in was to kill off all the clones.

[3rdalbum]

Steve Jobs would never allow Apple clones, just listen to this audio clip (warning: Not Safe For Work, bad language)

http://home.iprimus.com.au/lees107/hypercard.mp3

I hope Apple tries releasing OS X for normal computers, because it would kill their business.

[AlphaMack]

Not as long as Steve Jobs is the CEO. The first thing he did when he came in was to kill off all the clones.

Ironic since he turned NeXTSTEP loose.

That said, he is repeating the same mistake he made while at NeXT where the OS is the dongle.

[andrewjoy]

I dont think it will, and dont want it to ever happen. Its not a good idea OSX is so stable and secure because its intergrated with the hardware soon as you open it up to any hardwaire you lose that advanatge.

[kirsis]

If OSX went to all PCs it would be worse than Windows.

1. It would have loads of bugs from conflicting hardware.

2. People would develop viruses and spyware if it went mainstream.

3. They would not make anywhere near as much money because companies like Compaq, Hp, ect, would sell "Macs" for under $500.

This + the fact that there'd suddenly be a driver void. Hardware + OS X - drivers = OS X reputation going down the drain.

[MikeTheC]

I think what amazes me most is the sheer rampant ignorance of a lot of people out there (including some here) on this topic.

Steve Jobs is the reason Apple did not fold their tent a long, long time ago. And the reason there would have been a tent-folding was through sheer irrelevance and horrible decision-making by the then-BoD at Apple.

Regarding the remark about Apple lacking the expertise to put Mac OS X on "any PC"...

1. Much of Mac OS X comes from F/OSS efforts. A good portion comes from NeXT.
2. There's nothing special about the hardware Apple is presently using.
3. Look at the range of hardware that Linux presently supports. Do you people remember what the "Linux community" is?

Take a look at the crap that the OSX86 community is going through. Almost certainly better than 98% of that comes directly back to Apple deliberately not supporting certain generations of hardware, or certain configurations of hardware. In other words, it's not that Apple "isn't yet" supporting various odd hardware out there, but that it's deliberately "not supporting" hardware. Take out the added-in arbitrary limits Apple has inserted into the x86-based tree of Mac OS X, and the work-arounds the OSX86 community is doing would become irrelevant in the next second.

This is not about the technology, people. It's about Apple's business strategy. Plain and simple. And until Apple decides to restructure their business strategy to sell Mac OS X unchained, it will never happen. It can't happen. It would cripple Apple.

The question you should all, instead, be asking yourselves is what is Apple going to do once the freight train that is Linux gets here? Hmm?

[Old_Gray_Wolf]

It is not going to happen. The biggest complaint I have seen about Linux is the lack of hardware driver support. They don't need bloggers to start saying the MAC OS X.<whatever> doesn't work out of the box, and you have to use the CLI to install Windows drivers with wrappers. Vista has already shown that driver support is a problem; therefore, the new Ad campaign.