This just in: OS X running on PCs a bad idea, or: C.K.'s lost it
Who could've imagined that hell would freeze over and C.K. would lose it all in the same day? Check out his It's on! post. Did you notice his "Of course, the real key to this would be if Apple would just go ahead and release a version of OS X for PCs" line towards the end?
Granted we're still at ground zero in terms of this Boot Camp news, but I can't think of resulting a conclusion/speculation that I couldn't disagree more with. It's great that Apple's allowing all those Mac users to run Windows for an app or two that doesn't work in Mac OS X yet, but I really don't think Boot Camp signifies Apple's first step towards 'fighting the PC revolution' using anyone's hardware but their own. Aside from the 'Apple is a hardware company' business model argument, it would undermine both their business and engineering practices on a number of levels.
Apple licensing out Mac OS X to run on anyone's hardware would unleash the very stability and management nightmares that they've been trying to avoid by controlling both hardware and software. This scenario is very much like what would happen if they opened up the iTunes and iPod platform: look at Microsoft's 'Plays for Sure' attempt at helping iTunes' competitors. Napster's own CEO has publicly stated that, more or less: it sucks.
In the context of an industry where anyone and their mother can slap together parts for PCs with crazy glue and duct tape, Apple's model of controlling the hardware that their stellar software runs on has far more of a purpose than simply gouging people's bank accounts; and even the age-old whine of "but Mac/iPod hardware is more expensive" has been thoroughly discounted.
Please, readers of TUAW, I beg you: don't listen to C.K. He's clearly lost it. Let's all have a moment of silence for our fellow blogger in hopes that he can find the strength to regain his sanity.
