Why wouldn't Apple want their OS in more markets on more machines? Wouldn't the exposure be great for the company? Lower prices bring in new customers and build new relationships.
Oh yeah, people would realize that the OS is incredibly limiting, able to run on just a tiny fraction of all PC related hardware. Then they would realize that Apple jacks up their prices 30-50% over what a competitor would charge for the same functionality.
I can't comprehend how even the most strident Apple fan would be against allowing the OS to be put on more hardware platforms. Wouldn't it be great to be able to go into a store, pick out your hardware and manufacturer, then add on your OS (Apple, Microsoft or Linux), and walk out a completely satisfied customer?
#1. OS X on generic hardware would likely end up with the sames sorts of issues as Windows does with driver issues. Mac is a closed system. The downside is that you can't just run anything you want. The upside is that it is more stable because the OS is tailored to the hardware. If Apple opened up OS X to generic hardware, the user experience would not be that good. #2. Apple makes about 20% profit on a lot of it's Mac line. Selling OS X separately would cannibalize Mac sales.
Apple will never sell OS X for generic hardware, at least not while Steve jobs draws breath.
Actually no. I want stability and don't mind a limited system. You see' you can't have everything. You might buy more expensive hardware but you can get cheap software and I would like to keep it that way. I am typing on a 5 year old iBook G4 with 1 Mghz processor and 758MB RAM on which I run CS4 everyday and I never had to update shit and never had any problems whatsoever (it's even the same HD). Hell yeah, it was worth $1200!!! You don't like to pay for a Mercedes, get a Ford, it's that easy. And yes, there is someone else behind Psystar than just the owner who will suddenly go back to South America when shit hits the wall!
Maybe you'd understand if you read one of the other of billions of posts on the matter in the past 8 years, rather than just regurgitating the same ill-considered questions.
Here's a quick summary of the answer:
As consumers, we'd all love to have more choice in operating systems, so it's a no-brainer to advocate OSx86 available for all hardware.
As a business, Apple could never afford to do this due to the massive barriers to entry in generic x86 OS market. The economies of scale for supporting that hardware simply don't exist unless you own a massive percentage of the market.
Now that we've thrown 'em off the trail, use the form below to get in touch with the people at Engadget. Please fill in all of the required fields because they're required.
Why wouldn't Apple want their OS in more markets on more machines? Wouldn't the exposure be great for the company? Lower prices bring in new customers and build new relationships.
Oh yeah, people would realize that the OS is incredibly limiting, able to run on just a tiny fraction of all PC related hardware. Then they would realize that Apple jacks up their prices 30-50% over what a competitor would charge for the same functionality.
I can't comprehend how even the most strident Apple fan would be against allowing the OS to be put on more hardware platforms. Wouldn't it be great to be able to go into a store, pick out your hardware and manufacturer, then add on your OS (Apple, Microsoft or Linux), and walk out a completely satisfied customer?
You have to read Zak's post above. He does make a good point as to why Apple can't let their OS be licensed to other Hardware Manufacturers.
because apple sells computes, not just the OS.
#1. OS X on generic hardware would likely end up with the sames sorts of issues as Windows does with driver issues. Mac is a closed system. The downside is that you can't just run anything you want. The upside is that it is more stable because the OS is tailored to the hardware. If Apple opened up OS X to generic hardware, the user experience would not be that good.
#2. Apple makes about 20% profit on a lot of it's Mac line. Selling OS X separately would cannibalize Mac sales.
Apple will never sell OS X for generic hardware, at least not while Steve jobs draws breath.
Actually no. I want stability and don't mind a limited system. You see' you can't have everything. You might buy more expensive hardware but you can get cheap software and I would like to keep it that way. I am typing on a 5 year old iBook G4 with 1 Mghz processor and 758MB RAM on which I run CS4 everyday and I never had to update shit and never had any problems whatsoever (it's even the same HD). Hell yeah, it was worth $1200!!! You don't like to pay for a Mercedes, get a Ford, it's that easy.
And yes, there is someone else behind Psystar than just the owner who will suddenly go back to South America when shit hits the wall!
Maybe you'd understand if you read one of the other of billions of posts on the matter in the past 8 years, rather than just regurgitating the same ill-considered questions.
Here's a quick summary of the answer:
As consumers, we'd all love to have more choice in operating systems, so it's a no-brainer to advocate OSx86 available for all hardware.
As a business, Apple could never afford to do this due to the massive barriers to entry in generic x86 OS market. The economies of scale for supporting that hardware simply don't exist unless you own a massive percentage of the market.