Diatribe of an Apple Addict

Prepare to be served!

http://www.apple.com/getamac/ads/
from JoeUser Forums

Sandisk captures the mindset of many people well in their iDon't campaign well. People hate Apple so much they'll choose inferior products, pathetic plagiarisms of Apple's superior designs, just to feel cool. After all, by using Windows and products made exclusively for Windows, they can say, "I'm free! I'm not forced to use a certain software (except Windows) or hardware (except Intel or AMD)! I have complete control (except for the DRMs)." If their criticisms of Apple weren't so stupid, it wouldn't be so pathetic. If they refused to use Apple because Steve Jobs was a Nazi who planned to destroy all the Jews, then I would applaud them for their consumer ethics! Hell, I would even buy a Sansa (which is made by revolutionaries according to iDon't) instead of a nano (which is made by a faceless corporation only looking to make a buck). But their grievances against Apple aren't irrational. They simply don't like Apple because it's "square" to like Apple these days.

To show I'm no blind Mac bigot though, I'll concede a few truths. Apple isn't perfect. It is no better ethically than any other corporation. My MacBook Pro has heat issues. Bill Gates, who is quite charitable, is a better man than Steve Jobs, who is said to be a jerk. Windows XP is a great OS.* Apple's interests lie in Apple and not in me. After all, they are a businesses, and businesses exist for one thing: profit.

These days though, people think that Apple should forget about profit and focus on marketshare. They have become so obsessed with Microsoft's insane marketshare that they think that businesses exist only for it. "That is why Apple should release OS X for all PCs and not just for Macs," they say with their eyes closed. "Sure, Apple will lose a chunk of profit since copies of OS X have much thinner margins than Macs and Macbooks, but profit is irrelevant to a business! I learned this in Harvard!" Sure, marketshare is always good, but despite what they learned from Harvard, businesses are more interested in profit than in marketshare. If they weren't, then why would any business, such as not changed. Profit is still more important to them than marketshare. Otherwise, why would any business, such as Rolls-Royce, bother making luxury vehicles when they could gain a bigger marketshare with crappy commodity cars that have no profit margin whatsoever?

That's brings me to a complaint I often hear against Apple: Macs are too expensive. "Why pay $1,000 for a Mac when I could buy an eMachine for $500?" And yet, I could find a Pentium 2 on Craigslist for $100! Of course, the Pentium 2 with a whopping 64 MB of RAM (and a regular CD-ROM!) won't compare to the latest eMachine in Best Buy, but the eMachine doesn't compare to the iMac either. Compare the iMac to a PC that's actually built with the same features, and the price gap diminishes. Sometimes, the Mac's even cheaper! Sure, Apple is still more expensive than commodity hardware, and so people who don't want to spend more than $500 on a computer should go for the commodity PC, but most of the people who complain of the price of Macs are the ones who turn their nose up to such PCs, so for them to use price as an excuse for not buying a Mac is simply bull.

After complaints about price come complaints about "vendor lock-in." Essentially, these people do not like to feel dependent on one company. At least when that company's Apple. Now, I'll concede that the criticism is valid to those that only use multi-platform software, but many of these complainers use Windows, and some of the software and hardware today is made exclusively for Windows. How is being locked in to using one vendor (i.e. Microsoft) to run essential applications, services, and hardware because they're only compatible with Windows not vendor lock-in? "Because, every Windows user in the world uses Windows because they prefer it. Nobody feels as though they're forced to use it. And I can run Office 2007 on Solaris!" Right.

People use the same argument against iPod. They say, "I do not like the fact that I am forced to use iTunes, which is available on both Windows and OS X. I'd rather be forced to use Windows Media Player 10, which is only available on Windows! That's choice! I don't like how restrictive the monolithic iTunes Music Store is. I prefer choice, even if that choice merely consists of several crappy online stores that sell the same songs at the same price with the same DRM restrictions that are even more restricting than the iTMS DRM! I also prefer to spend hundreds of dollars renting my music for months so that I'll end up with nothing after I end my subscription. iTunes doesn't offer me that!" Do I even need to explain why their argument is stupid? I wonder why these people don't use Linux. Linux distros used to bundle hundreds of crappy audio players because, as I'm sure a Linux advocate would say, "It's better to have hundreds of crappy audio players than have one that actually works." Choice is always nice, but quality is even better, and the iPod+iTunes combination offers far better quality in its integration than the Sansa Crapper 9000 and a soon-to-be-bankrupt music store that only works on Windows does. "But what about stores like eMusic, huh?" Well, they work with iPods too. ?

And what is the recent obsession with built-in FM tuners? As a Sansa Crapper 9000 user would say, "This uglier, bulkier, more frustrating ripoff of an iPod nano is truly the consumer's choice. After all, iPods don't even have built-in FM tuners, and we know that everybody wants them! EVERYBODY!" If they did, then they'd buy a SC9000. Or they could just buy an FM tuner for the iPod. However, most iPod users I know haven't purchased one. Despite what some say, FM tuners aren't in such high demand these days. "But Apple should just include one anyway!" That's all right. Perhaps I'm old-fashioned, but I prefer my products not to be bloated with crap I'll never use.

Sure, Macs aren't for everybody. Macs won't satisfy gamers, users who love to fiddle with their machines and build their own computers, and people who are at bliss with Windows. And I know the last group exists, because Windows XP is a wonderful OS. Far better than Linux, who would be the forty-year-old virgin who craps on himself and thinks that groping women is gentlemanly if he were on the "Get a Mac" commercials. Seriously, a porn addiction is more productive and less shameful than "using" Linux (and I say this having been guilty of both). Anyway, I digress. There's definitely a market in which PCs and generic MP3 players are better. However, for those who don't like to toy around with computers and prefer things to just work well together, Apple is truly king and queen.

* As opposed to Vista AKA Translucency and Shadows Gone Wild, which is a pathetic imitation of OS X that tries too hard and demands too much, while Tiger could be run in almost all its glory (i.e. no annoying ripple effect on Dashboard) on a G3!

macintosh
29,162 views 31 replies
Reply #1 from WinCustomize Forums Top
SA, You can buy a PC from scratch - you & you alone - selecting the components you want without being locked-in buying an emachine(your comparing Macs to emachines like it's your only choice for that price!!) Also I find it ironic in that Apple use to press the notion of PC's all looking the same - ugly beige coloured boxes(which they were!!!) Now everything has come full circle...Mac's all look the same with PC coming in every colour, shape, & size possible!! Being able to mod your computer should have been right up SJ's alley...too bad he got greedy & went the way of the Sony/Betamax debacle.
Reply #2 from JoeUser Forums Top
I had planned to purchase a Macbook, however Apple let me down. the $1100 model has intergrated graphics, no dvd burning, no media card slots and of course no 2nd mouse button, So I compared and compared and ended up with a Compaq that has all those things and more for quite a bit less cash.

Once Adobe get universal binaries out, I probably will get an iMac to use as a desktop. However, I am still on the fence. I don't want to pay the Mac tax and then the Microsoft tax(office). So maybe I'll wait and see if OpenOffice.org releases an OSX version.
Sins of a Solar Empire: Rebellion
Reply #3 from JoeUser Forums Top

Feature for Feature, you are correct.  The cost is not that different. But as George Rogers states, the PC is much more flexible in what you can build it with.

In the end, it all comes down to taste.  And there is no one right choice.  For some, necessity drives the purchase (like me).  For others, ambiance.  If you like your platform of choice, then nothing anyone says will sway you, and that is the way it should be.

Reply #4 from JoeUser Forums Top
So maybe I'll wait and see if OpenOffice.org releases an OSX version.


There are two - OpenOffice.org, which runs through X11, and NeoOffice, which is native to OSX. I've used NeoOffice and, while it's not up to the same tech level as openoffice for Windows, it's much more 'Mac' than the X11 version (it's buttons are the right shape, it loads fairly quickly, it works properly with all the Mac effects etc).

SA, You can buy a PC from scratch - you & you alone - selecting the components you want without being locked-in buying an emachine(your comparing Macs to emachines like it's your only choice for that price!!)


You have to make them though - not many people are keen to do that. A make-your-own PC is also unlikely to look as good as a machine whose components are shaped to fit the case. Especially when the iMac is just a fat LCD and the average PC still needs a box.
Reply #5 from WinCustomize Forums Top
I think Apple should make their OS for all computers. It would be a perfect way for them to gain a bigger market share, because, if people used their OS on their machines and really liked it, they might consider buying a Mac when they next buy a computer. I know I would. I really believe that is the best way of attacking Microsofts domination.....if that is what they really want to do.
Reply #6 from WinCustomize Forums Top
I think Apple should make their OS for all computers.


Absolutely! If Apple were to do this, rather than just catering to a niche market, it would gain them far more respect because they're providing greater options within the marketplace.

Apple would gain more than it would lose, but it's convincing Steve Jobs that people would respect it and continue to buy the Mac hardware as well, particularly if the pricing policy were restructured to make it more affordable...which could be done without profit loss, due to the increased sales of the OS.

Or is it Steve Jobs' pride standing in the way: "The Mac OS should only run on the very best, superior hardware...that's its' right, end of story."

Up until the advent of Intel based Macs, Jobs has vehemently opposed the idea of Mac and Windows being seen on the same (or lesser) machines, but with the release of Bootcamp (to be incorporated in the upcoming Leopard OS), perhaps he is softening his stance and we'll eventually see his blessing for inter-OS capabilities on both PC and Mac based hardware....Mac OSes sold separately.
Reply #7 from JoeUser Forums Top
I don't think the Mac OS should be available for non-OS systems. Part of its appeal is how effectively it works. If suddenly support had to be built in for hardware which doesn't bear the Apple logo I can't see how Apple could be as competitive as Windows. People would become disenchanted with OSX's ease of use if suddenly hardware conflicts started appearing.
Reply #8 from WinCustomize Forums Top

People would become disenchanted with OSX's ease of use if suddenly hardware conflicts started appearing.

Probably shows just how 'good' the Windows system really is....since it 'must' cater for all that odd hardware config, etc.

It'd be an interestingly level 'playing field' if OS-X had to support generic hardware, etc, wouldn't it?....

Reply #9 from WinCustomize Forums Top
People would become disenchanted with OSX's ease of use if suddenly hardware conflicts started appearing.


Not necessarily....the idea would be that people could still purchase OS-X on Apple/Mac, but also the option for it to run on PC's for those who desire it: for XP and Vista to run on Mac hardware should consumers want it.

It shouldn't be a matter of what the purists, fan-boys, Steve Jobs want personally, but to cater to the broader market, what consumers want....bottom line. If the Mac purists and fan-boys gotta have OS-X on Mac hardware, fine, but if someone else wants to run it on generic hardware, what's wrong with that, who's it hurting?

To avoid the 'supposed' extra drain in Mac tech support, Apple could issue a disclaimer stating the OS is only eligible for genuine support when installed on native Mac hardware, thus requiring those with alternative generic stuff to DIY or take it to their own techie. Those who are keen and interested enough will accept that and purchase the OS regardless, assuming the risks and reponsibilty for themselves....harming no-one in the process.

How would it be if Adobe started saying they'll no longer sell their software to consumers on AMD CPU's...or Corell saying we're not selling software to anyone using Intel? To me, that would be limiting my options/choices, and no different to Apple....creating a niche market of fan-boys who thrive on OS/software wars, bagging others who don't use what they're using. Oh please, spare me!
Reply #10 from WinCustomize Forums Top
"How would it be if Adobe started saying they'll no longer sell their software to consumers on AMD CPU's"

They somewhat did that already. Everytime Apple comes out with their own version of Abobe software, Adobe stops making their original version available for Macs. Adobe Premiere was the first, and it looks like Adobe Lightroom will be Windows only after Apple came out with Aperture. Of course, Adobe is doing this mostly for spite...
Reply #11 from WinCustomize Forums Top
They somewhat did that already. Everytime Apple comes out with their own version of Abobe software, Adobe stops making their original version available for Macs. Adobe Premiere was the first, and it looks like Adobe Lightroom will be Windows only after Apple came out with Aperture. Of course, Adobe is doing this mostly for spite...


This is exactly what I'm talking about...the inter-OS/software bickering!! It's so damned childish and it's we, the consumer who misses out, and quite frankly, you'd see better behaviour from a bunch of pre-schoolers who know no better.

It's quite obvious that I'm not the only one desiring inter-OS operability, given the workarounds to enable XP on Macs and visa versa, and if enough consumers shout loud enough, maybe we can get positive results regarding consumer wants and needs within the OS/software/hardware domains.

Supermarket customers would not tolerate being told they can only purchase one brand of coffee in 2lb jars - it's unacceptable to be told what you can eat, drink, wear and etc - and it's no different here! When petty squabbling among manufacturers limits our computing options, it's no better than being restricted to only one type of car; clothing; food; music, so on and so on.

Steve Jobs, Symantec and the like....ger yer heads outta yer arses and put consumers before your conceited pride and petty squabbling, we're sick and tired of coming in second to your trumped up egos.

**rant off**
Reply #12 from WinCustomize Forums Top
If appple Relese the Max OS the use on any hardware, OSX will no longer be a closed system and quite frankly that is one of the points I like. You buy a Mac and it has it's hardware profile. Apple hs the drivers setup for that profile and thus they can create stability.

You Have OSX on all hardware and Apple no longer controls the hardware and we all know some vendors make some crappy drivers, it's taken windows years to get to a point where most of the drivers aredecent and yet I still get a crappy one sometimes. One crap driver and system stability goes to hell in a handbasket.

However if Apple did what they did with the Ipod and set up a liscensing program say "Mac OS compatable" or what ever and verified that things will work with the OS it might be Ok.
Reply #13 from JoeUser Forums Top
It'd be an interestingly level 'playing field' if OS-X had to support generic hardware, etc, wouldn't it?


Not really. Microsoft is much bigger than Apple. I guess it'd be as level as the Solaris/Microsoft conflict though.
Reply #14 from WinCustomize Forums Top
It's quite obvious that I'm not the only one desiring inter-OS operability


When code was written in assembler (yes, I did that!), that was a pipe dream. Now that code (most) is written in 3rd level languages? It is just an excuse. And only the puffed shirts cannot see that there is no reason to deny it.
Reply #15 from WinCustomize Forums Top
If appple Relese the Max OS the use on any hardware, OSX will no longer be a closed system and quite frankly that is one of the points I like.


Yes, if you purchase OS-X and the native hardware, you're getting the 'closed' system you so desire and 'choose' to pay for....but what about me, the others who would dearly love to try a Mac OS but could never afford the hardware it MUST come with? With the available cash, your choice of a 'closed' system is freely available, and obviously you wouldn't like to be denied it, so pray tell why it's any fairer to deny someone who'd like to run OS-X on generic hardware. If someone is prepared to run it on an open/generic system, and run the risk of having to fix driver issues and etc themselves, then they should have that freedom of choice. I hope you're keeping an eye on this Mr Jobs....

You can purchase a Ford motor vehicle and rip out their radio to replace it with a Clarion, Magnavox, etc. You can combine a Pioneer amp with a technics EQ and a Kenwood CD player. You can mix and match an Armani suit with a Target shirt and Hugo Boss underwear...and you can throw together some Heinz spaghetti with Craft cheese to have spag and cheese on toast....so if it's possible in to mix 'n match in most other facets of our lives, why not with OS-X, Mr Jobs? Don't try to tell me you haven't wanted to combined various products of different manufacturers, and have, or would have but for some puffed shirt in a CEO suit engineering it so you can't.

However if Apple did what they did with the Ipod and set up a liscensing program say "Mac OS compatable" or what ever and verified that things will work with the OS it might be Ok.


Exactly, it's possible, and who would it hurt? The purists and fanboys could continue using their beloved Apple/Mac hardware, and other consumers have the option to run it on generic hardware, with a choice to upgrade to a 'closed sytem' should they desire to complete the Mac experience....nobody loses. It'd be a win, win situation for everyone, Mr Jobs....

There was a lot of guff floating around from people and purists with their heads in the sand, saying that Mac's transition to Intel CPU's would herald the end of Apple Mac's, but it seems the transition has actually enhanced Apple's image and boosted sales some, and with the introduction of BootCamp, interest in Mac's has also risen to an all time high. So, given these scenarios, Apple has more to gain from licensing OS-X to non-closed systems than it would lose.

Early in the new year I'm getting a mini iMac to further my computing experience, and it'll conveniently sit in a pigeon hole on my desk top, but I don't see why I should have to run both my PC AND Mac machines to achieve my goals, etc. Sure, I can Dual boot XP on the Mac, but what if I'm running my PC and want to use OS-X? Quite simply I can't boot into an OS-X partition, so I have to disconnect my monitor and peripherals and hook 'em up to the mini Mac to use it....and when I want to use my PC again, the same rigmaroll over again. Sony doesn't tell me I can't play the HMV, RCA and WB music I paid for on my paid for Sony hi-fi, and I'd like the same customer consideration/respect from Apple. Not only would I have paid for OS-X, I'd have also purchased the Mac hardware, and for my convenience, I'd like to have the license and ability to legally use OS-X and XP on the mini Mac and visa versa. Mr Jobs and Apple aren't going to lose any sleep or money over it, so why not, who am I hurting?

And only the puffed shirts cannot see that there is no reason to deny it.


Exactamundo!! It's not like we aren't over governed, controlled and manipulated in one form or another (at work or home, in public) by governments, law enforcement and trade unions, etc...and then, to add insult to injury, our freedom of choice is restricted by corporate 'stuffed shirts' whose powers and authority are self imposed to exact their will on the (buying) public....(and don't get me started on the slimy tactics of the RIAA and others, assuming law enforcement powers outside the jurisdiction of the courts, police depts).

So it would seem, then, most democracies, presumed or otherwise, have within them elements of communism and/or dictatorships...by somehow reducing or eliminating our freedom of choice. Sure, we need controls against criminality to protect society and promote safety, etc, but in some quarters the lust for power and control exceeds pure common sense and the better good of all.

**rant off* (again...for now).
Reply #16 from JoeUser Forums Top
Exactly, it's possible, and who would it hurt? The purists and fanboys could continue using their beloved Apple/Mac hardware, and other consumers have the option to run it on generic hardware, with a choice to upgrade to a 'closed sytem' should they desire to complete the Mac experience....nobody loses. It'd be a win, win situation for evertone, Mr Jobs....


Well it would dilute the brand... I'm sure there's a marketing exec out there who could explain better than me, but by directly setting itself in opposition to Windows Apple would no longer be able to position itself as a prestige label. It would instantly lose its high status-cred if any old machine could run it. If you look at the kinds of professions it's associated with, whether on tv or in real life the mac is the platform of choice for anyone who wants to look sophisticated.

By letting just anyone use its products the brand would lose exclusivity and appear less desirable.
Reply #17 from WinCustomize Forums Top
Concur with Boxxi & Sir starkers completely!!! If Microsoft can come out with how many - Six different versions of Vista(on two platforms - 32bit & 64bit) WHY can't they(APPLE)work on an OSX PC version exclusively! Can't you see it....you walk into COMPUSA & see a metal rack stand with OSX/PC's....OSX/Mac next to each other!! There's no reason not to!!
Reply #18 from WinCustomize Forums Top
Well it would dilute the brand..


No, I disagree, not when Apple packages their own hard/software and sells it as they always have...the Apple/Mac system remains as pure as it always has been. To sell the OS seperately for installation on generic hardware/PC's would not in any way diminish the polished. prestigeous appearance of the 'closed' Mac sytem. What it does achieve, however, is the wider opportunity for consumers to enjoy the Mac OS experience, albeit on a non-Mac based machine....but there's nothing to say those consumers wouldn't eventually want to incorporate it into a complete Mac system at some stage. And so what if they don't...Apple's profits are increased through greater sales, the purist's can still walk into Mac stockists and marvel at the prestige of exclusively built 'closed' Mac machines....without having to look at hybrids, or as their fanboys would say..."mutants"

However, as George Rogers suggests, why can't Apple use its high manufacturing standards to create an equally 'exquisite' PC based OS-X machine? Eventually it would have its own following of purists and fanboys, just as the current Mac formats currently enjoy. Diluting the brand? Far from it! The complete opposite would be true - sure, each version would have its own following - but Apple's inventory of quality computers grows, as does its consumer base, market share and profit margins.
There is no valid reason on God's Earth why this is not achievable...okay, there'd be a minority with their anally retentive attitudes condemning it, but the concept would be embraced by the larger community and it would thrive....

Oh, I forgot (re: no valid reason), Steve Jobs and his cronies are among those who are anally retentive, though still not a VALID reason (hope you're listening), but why? Is is because they're afraid of greater success, intimidated by having a greater market share...scared demand will exceed supply? 'Cause if they've got the balls and vision, they can grow with it and give MS a better run for its money with....

Can't you see it....you walk into COMPUSA & see a metal rack stand with OSX/PC's....OSX/Mac next to each other!!


And they'd all be high quality Apple/Mac machines, something for fanboys of both formats to drool over.

Sh!t, it just dawned on me (diatribe)!! Just when I say I'll never become a Mac fanboy, I realise that I have...and I haven't even got one....YET!!.
Reply #19 from JoeUser Forums Top
I think Stardock should make a version of Galactic Civilizations for OS X. Sure, it'd cost them more money than it'd make them, but 1) they'd gain a bigger marketshare and 2) they'd gain respect. But will it be profitable for them?

As for Mac clones, Apple's done that before. It didn't work that well. Apple is doing pretty well now with their hardware anyway. If you compare them to the entire PC industry (acting as though all PC makers are one company), then they're doing terribly, but if you compare them to the actual companies, are they doing that badly? And if they were to release OS X for all PCs, I seriously doubt that it would lead people to buy more Macs. People always complain that Macs are too expensive and that the design of it all is irrelevant. Why would anybody willingly choose an "inferior pricier" computer for one that's "cheaper and better quality" if they truly are?

"Probably shows just how 'good' the Windows system really is....since it 'must' cater for all that odd hardware config, etc."

Well, Linux does cater to many more platforms than Windows, but I still think Windows is much better.

"Concur with Boxxi & Sir starkers completely!!! If Microsoft can come out with how many - Six different versions of Vista(on two platforms - 32bit & 64bit) WHY can't they(APPLE)work on an OSX PC version exclusively! Can't you see it....you walk into COMPUSA & see a metal rack stand with OSX/PC's....OSX/Mac next to each other!! There's no reason not to!!"

Why won't Stardock release Galactic Civilizations for OS X? Or why doesn't whatever company who makes Half Life 2 release it for OS X? Blizzard releases their games for both Windows and OS X. Sure, it wouldn't be profitable for them, but it'd make me happy. Personally, it saddens me when companies such as Google don't focus more on the Mac and develop more of its software for it (i.e. Picasa, which I want to try (and not some crappy emulated version)), but I know that they'll always place Mac users behind Windows users because the Windows market is more profitable for them.
Reply #20 from WinCustomize Forums Top

I think Stardock should make a version of Galactic Civilizations for OS X. Sure, it'd cost them more money than it'd make them, but 1) they'd gain a bigger marketshare and 2) they'd gain respect. But will it be profitable for them?

Stardock DOES have 'respect'...and especially from the direction that 'really matters', too....Microsoft, hence the 'Platinum Partner' accreditation.

Since the days of OS2, Stardock has been firmly entrenched within the Windows/Microsoft world.  Catering to a [comparitive] minority ...and perhaps for a commercial 'loss'?....hardly enticing...

Reply #21 from WinCustomize Forums Top
As for Mac clones, Apple's done that before. It didn't work that well.


Maybe so in the past, but essentially, isn't the Intel Mac a clone of the original Mac hardware concept/design? Obviously Steve Jobs and his team saw a market for it, and according to various market sources it has been well received in many quarters, is selling well. In reality, then, the Intel Mac has become more PC-like, and when Jobs saw there was a demand for dual booting OS-X with XP (via the hacks being used to enable it) he/Apple came up with BootCamp to make it more official/acceptable, in that Apple itself was authorising/enabling it.

Okay, so some purists don't like the idea (they'll get over it), and perhaps there are some within Apple who oppose the idea, but the transition to a PC based OS-X has already begun, if only in a small way initially and (perhaps) inadvertantly. As more and more people embrace the concept of the Intel Mac, dual booting XP on it, the more a market/demand for a Mac PC grows/gathers momentum....and Steve Jobs/Apple will ignore consumers at their own peril. If they don't create and sanction it, someone (hackers/opportunists) eventually will. In fact, hacks to install OS-X on a dual boot PC already exist...so it would seem it's only a matter of time before it becomes more mainstream/public. The unanswered question (to date) is whether or not Apple will seize the initiative...or have it taken from them. Wake up and smell the roses, Mr Jobs. put your snobbery, pride and exclusivity aside for a bit and grab the bull by the horns, so to speak. You don't see Bill Gates, with all his wealth, power and influence employing sobbery and exclusivity with Windows OSes, anyone can use them. Heaven forbid, he even allows Mac zealots to use Windows...imagine that.

And if they were to release OS X for all PCs, I seriously doubt that it would lead people to buy more Macs. People always complain that Macs are too expensive and that the design of it all is irrelevant. Why would anybody willingly choose an "inferior pricier" computer for one that's "cheaper and better quality" if they truly are?


Maybe not all PC users of a stand-alone OS-X would or could end up purchasing the Mac hardware to run it on, but there are those who refuse to buy generic/economy brands in supermarkets, etc (they only want the best?), and these people would be the ones who'd go the whole hog after deciding OS-X suits their needs/wants/desires. So if Apple follows the basic rules of supply and demand, market economy strategies, then the price of Mac harware could come down to enable those less affluent to purchase it also...remove the zealot, elitist and snob aspects and it's all possible.

The question begging to be asked is: why does a PC Mac with OS-X installed have to be any less attractive than those in the G series or an Intel Mac? Answer: they don't have to be...in using Apple's high manufacturing standards, there's no reason why a PC Mac wouldn't be as sleek. stylish and stable as any other in Apples 'stable'. Sure, there'd be the zealots and purists who's never be seen dead with a Mac PC on their desktop/lap, but there's a huge wealth of PC users out there who don't like Windows all that much - who hate MS and Bill Gates with a passion - who'd jump at the chance of owning a Mac PC with OS-X on it. So how's them roses smelling now, Mr Jobs, a little better now someone has cleared some of the manure from under your nose?

Personally, it saddens me when companies such as Google don't focus more on the Mac and develop more of its software for it


Yep, you and how many others, and don't you think that if Apple were to make its OS more widely used/available, such as 'stand-alone' or on less expensive PC platforms, that more software developers would be inclined to cater for it more often than not?

Okay, so maybe the initial editions don't turn a profit (?), but it takes money to make money (Apples not short of a quid) and with word of mouth from satisfied customers, other ways of getting the 'heads up' out there, subsequent versions/editions would eventually turn a profit, thus becoming more affordable and increasing Apple's market share, etc. It'd be a win, win situation for Apple and consumers alike

Oh, and Bill, if you're reading this, it's not that I don't like MS or Windows, I'd just like to see a world of computing options open up the benifit end users, okay.
Reply #22 from JoeUser Forums Top
starkers: You mention that hackers are going to make it possible to run OSX on pcs anyway, so why on earth would Apple bother to make it compatible themselves? If they let hackers do it the hackers are still going to have to buy the OS software and Apple isn't stuck with support and escalating costs/inefficiencies. Win-win situation.

Heaven forbid, he even allows Mac zealots to use Windows...imagine that


Actually Vista now won't support the bios that Apple uses and XP supports despite initial promises from Gates. I wonder why he changed his mind...

but it takes money to make money (Apples not short of a quid) and with word of mouth from satisfied customers, other ways of getting the 'heads up' out there, subsequent versions/editions would eventually turn a profit, thus becoming more affordable and increasing Apple's market share, etc.


Why bother making a loss now? Apple has already cornered the portable music player market, and could easily move into the home theatre market if it chose. Why should it take on XP on XPs home turf when it's unlikely any major corporations would buy OSX on a PC platform if they don't already buy it on Apple's? Realistically speaking the money's in the corporate world, not with enthusiasts.
Reply #23 from WinCustomize Forums Top
Makes COMMONSENSE Ss, but don't let that get in the way of an OSX/PC platform....they'll always find some "tortured logic" rational NOT TO!!! I honestly feel SJ operates in a vacuum when it comes to comsumerism - most unfortunate!!
Reply #24 from WinCustomize Forums Top
starkers: You mention that hackers are going to make it possible to run OSX on pcs anyway, so why on earth would Apple bother to make it compatible themselves?


That obviously wasn't Apple's thinking when the idea for BootCamp came up to counteract the dual boot hacks, was it! Apple saw an opportunity then, not so much in the 'free' BootCamp itself, but in the associated exposure, sales, etc....and
Apple will again feel the need to makes its presence known, rather than allow a bunch of hackers steal its thunder by modifying OS-X to cater to a growing market interest. If Steve Jobs doesn't want to lose control of his products, he needs to extract his head from his anus long enough to see others will take advantage of his opportunities if he doesn't take more positive steps to appease consumers than he has in the past.

Why should it take on XP on XPs home turf


Because there's a multitude of disenchanted XP/Windows users who'd happily migrate to OS-X if they could afford to...if it were freely available as a bootable on PC OS that doesn't entail having to purchase expensive Mac hardware. And obviously, software developers would follow the migration to increase their profits/market share.

Realistically speaking the money's in the corporate world, not with enthusiasts.


True, but a lot of enthusiasts wear corporate suits as well...appeasing them would help Apple move further ahead in both worlds: in the corporate world with more partners, clients and associates; in the home computing world through the enhanced opportunities created by its corporate associations/dealings....more importantly, through vision, better business practises, listening to the market, simple economics.
Reply #25 from JoeUser Forums Top
OS X is insanely stable. Why? Because there is a very small and controlled list of possible hardware pieces working under it. Start expanding it out to the sheer mass of potential configurations that Windows covers and suddenly you're dealing with a QA and support nightmare. Apple is not a software company, they're a hardware company and would gain relatively little from opening up OSX to run on any and all PC hardware. They make their money on devices and on boxes with huge premiums on them. A large part of the mystique that builds up the Cult of Mac is the look of the hardware. Sure the OS is slick and wonderful and all, but that's not what Apple is going for. They want to cultivate that elite look, that sense that if you run Mac software, you've got something special sitting in front of you.

OSX is a sales tool to drive the purchase of computers and ipods. Make it available for cheaper hardware and Apple loses what little share of the PC world they had. They've always positioned themselves as a hardware company first, and that's why MS outpaced them so fast. I think Apple has given up on the idea of being a true rival to Microsoft and they've instead decided to embrace the niche markets they excel in. No one can touch them on mp3 players since the introduction of the iPod. iTunes is blowing away every other online music store. In terms of artists, the Mac has remained the favorite. They picked their targets and have done very very well for themselves. Why should they overextend themselves into a market they can't reasonably compete in?