# Leopard run on PC's?



## Johnny Blaze (Sep 17, 2006)

Discuss


----------



## MrNivit1 (Sep 17, 2006)

Will not happen.  Apple makes $ on hardware it sells (with some pretty good profit margins to boot).  This is also why it has the iTunes store; to sell iPods.  We'll see some HaK0rZ get around the Leopard am-I-running-on-a-Mac checker, but it'll be like the workarounds that are already running today with Tiger.


----------



## Mikuro (Sep 18, 2006)

Why would it? If Apple were going to allow that, they wouldn't have bothered locking down Tiger. *shrug*


----------



## Johnny Blaze (Sep 18, 2006)

Yea but I figured since the intel switch and whatnot they might.  guess not.


----------



## Lt Major Burns (Sep 18, 2006)

be interesting to see just how locked-down it'll be, like how much effort and technology they put into it


----------



## ElDiabloConCaca (Sep 18, 2006)

Lt Major Burns said:


> ...like how much effort and technology they put into it


...or how many lawyers they throw at it.  If it does ever make it to a generic PC box, of course it will be illegal, and wouldn't be able to be discussed here beyond the theoretical.

I, for one, don't want Leopard to run on anything but a Mac.  As others have said here, Apple won't let it happen via a number of different measures and means: locking the software down, doing hardware checks at boot/install time, and by throwing a lot of legal weight around to shut down those who try and hack it.


----------



## fryke (Sep 18, 2006)

Apple can always choose to take MS head on and sell Mac OS X for PC licenses. However: It doesn't look like that's going to happen anytime soon, since Apple depends too much on hardware sales right now - as has been mentioned. Doesn't mean it'll *never* happen, though. But it'd certainly have to make sense for Apple financially, before they'd go there.

You also have to look at how such things happened in the past. I know of two great operating systems that got rid of their hardware, went PC and tried to get their feet into the PC OS cake. For both OpenStep and BeOS, these were their last steps, actually. (Of course OpenStep survived as Mac OS X, but that's rather a rebirth than a continuous life, although RacerX might disagree - but that'd be semantics...)

I guess Apple's goal is to actually sell more and more Macs and gain a strong position before opening the OS to other PCs instead of the other way 'round.


----------



## RacerX (Sep 19, 2006)

fryke said:
			
		

> For both OpenStep and BeOS, these were their last steps, actually. (Of course OpenStep survived as Mac OS X, but that's rather a rebirth than a continuous life, although RacerX might disagree - but that'd be semantics...)


That is pretty much the way it happened... and had Apple not bought NeXT, NeXT was planning on dumping their OS business altogether (moving their users to Sun) and just doing Enterprise Objects and WebObjects.


But the financial end of a move to PCs is massive!

For the sake of argument lets work with these numbers... we'll say Apple makes $100 on each retail copy of Mac OS X, and we'll also say that the average price for Apple hardware is $2000 and the average profit on that hardware is $800 (easy numbers, but I'm sure they are within the ballpark). Let us also put Apple's market share at 4% for this.

Apple would need to sell 8 copies of Mac OS X for every Mac that isn't bought because someone put Mac OS X on another companies PC. If this cuts Apple's hardware business in half (dropping their new hardware market share to 2%) how much market share would Apple have to gain with Mac OS X on PCs to brake even?

Apple would have to have 16% market share (a total of 18% including the 2% from their own hardware sales) to make up for the loss of half their hardware sales.

And we are strictly talking about profits above and beyond what it cost Apple to make either hardware or software.

Now factor in the fact that Microsoft has pointed out that about 35% of Windows installations are pirated. Why would Apple get off any easier than Microsoft in this area?

So Apple would actually need to reach nearly 23% market share (or 25% total) to brake even. And that is only if they lose half their hardware business. If they dropped their hardware all together they would need about 50% market share to stay as profitable as they are right now (making $100 for each copy of Mac OS X). 

Even if they could reach 10% market share (which they possibly could by dropping their hardware business and letting everyone just buy Mac OS X for any PC), that is about one fifth of what they are currently making with their hardware business at 4% market share.

When you look at it this way, Mac OS X on PC hardware is (from Apple's point of view) a *really* bad idea!


----------



## mindbend (Sep 19, 2006)

I agree that providing OS X on generic PC is a massively bad idea. One of the huge benefits of OS X, or historically, the "Mac" experience is the fact that Apple "makes the whole widget". They build the box and the OS. That has huge implications. It's a big part of why things "just work", because Apple doesn't have to worry about every stinking video card on the planet or millions of third party components.

In other words, the OS X experience on a generic PC will be compromised, making it less desirable and imminently extinct.

But then, I never thought in a million years Apple would proactively allow Windows to run on their machines so what do I know? (But that's a whole different situation, obviously).


----------



## Sunnz (Sep 19, 2006)

It already runs on PCs...

Only those PC are made by Apple, of course.


----------



## Tommo (Sep 20, 2006)

But just think how many potential switchers you might get if you allowed them to use OSX on existing kit without having to fork out Apple's high prices for hardware before they have been able to try the OS. This may lead to more hardware sales long term if it will be almost certain to run better on Apple kit.


----------



## Sunnz (Sep 20, 2006)

I doubt many people will get a Mac if they can just run OSX...

If you already has a computer that not very likely you'll get a new one just because it runs slightly better.

Most people are probably not going to even know the difference as they probably won't even goto a retail store to try out the Macs.

Further more, Apple will then have no control on what kinds of hardware/configuraion that OSX are going to run, and as things could get messy... I certainly rather to have a better OS then having a larger userbase.


----------



## ElDiabloConCaca (Sep 20, 2006)

Tommo said:


> ...without having to fork out Apple's high prices for hardware...


Unfortunately, this argument no longer holds water -- there are plenty of comparisons on the 'net now that debunk the idea that Apple's prices are any higher than any other PC retailer.  In fact, they're _lower_ now for comparable hardware.


----------



## Lt Major Burns (Sep 20, 2006)

plus, people will see it, go 'oh that's cool', but not really scratch the surface of OSX.  to do that, you've got to take the plunge and buy a mac.  that's the only way you'll give up that much time and energy switching to an entirely new platform: to justify the cost of your spendings.


----------



## Sunnz (Sep 20, 2006)

ElDiabloConCaca said:


> in fact, they're _lower_ now for comparable hardware.



Some components are much "cooler" than PC counter-parts too, e.g. magsafe on Macbooks, and the slot loading Sata thing on Mac Pro, all really cool and nice stuff... definately worth every penny you pay for.


----------



## Johnny Blaze (Sep 20, 2006)

So if it is such a terrible idea for Apple for monetary reasons, why did Microsoft allow Apple to run windows?  The argument that Apple makes so much money off of hardware and this is why they wouldnt is bunk.  By my guess the biggest pc supplier is dell, who also has higher prices and better quality product than the cheaper suppliers.  But regardless of the fact that they are more expensive (the prices are probably on par with Apple), people are still willing to pay more for a quality product.  Not only is Apple a better quality product than Dell, it is also much more suave looking giving it more appeal than a Dell.  And this my friends, is the reason that pc's should run windows (although I would rather not have it that way).


----------



## Mikuro (Sep 20, 2006)

ElDiabloConCaca said:


> Unfortunately, this argument no longer holds water -- there are plenty of comparisons on the 'net now that debunk the idea that Apple's prices are any higher than any other PC retailer.  In fact, they're _lower_ now for comparable hardware.


Well, that's one way to spin it. Another way is to say that you can buy a PC laptop for $300-500 less than a MacBook. Or a desktop (_with_ monitor, keyboard and mouse) for $100-200 less than a Mini.

Are these PCs "comparable"? Maybe not, but I think the better question is, does anyone buying them _want_ them to be?

I've said it before and I'll say it again: Apple could make cloning work if they only let the cloners target markets Apple currently ignores. e.g., the low-end market.

But that's very different than making OS X run on any ol' PC. I think that be a bad move right now. Maybe someday when Apple doesn't rely on hardware sales quite so much, but for now, they'd need to go out of their way not to cannibalize their own sales with any Mac-on-PC initiative.


----------



## Mikuro (Sep 20, 2006)

Johnny Blaze said:


> So if it is such a terrible idea for Apple for monetary reasons, why did Microsoft allow Apple to run windows?


Because...Microsoft doesn't make computers. They probably make MORE money on retail copies of Windows (which you'd need to buy to run it on a Mac) than they do on OEM-licensed copies of Windows. So Apple supporting Windows is probably good for their bottom line. (Also, I'm not sure they could have _stopped_ Apple if they wanted to.)


----------



## Sunnz (Sep 20, 2006)

Mikuro said:


> Well, that's one way to spin it. Another way is to say that you can buy a PC laptop for $300-500 less than a MacBook. Or a desktop (_with_ monitor, keyboard and mouse) for $100-200 less than a Mini.
> 
> Are these PCs "comparable"? Maybe not, but I think the better question is, does anyone buying them _want_ them to be?


You got a point there. But, IMHO, Apple is like Mercedes, and shouldn't lower the quality to fit low-end customers, Mac Mini should be their baseline... if they make anything lower, they should release under a different brand.


----------



## hawki18 (Sep 20, 2006)

ElDiabloConCaca said:


> Unfortunately, this argument no longer holds water -- there are plenty of comparisons on the 'net now that debunk the idea that Apple's prices are any higher than any other PC retailer.  In fact, they're _lower_ now for comparable hardware.



Mac prices are lower for comparable hardware, were are you getting your prices at.  for $1100 your can get a dual core Acer laptop a 100 gb hd and ATI 1600 128mb the same card in the lower end MBP.  So you arugment does not hold water.


----------



## Sunnz (Sep 21, 2006)

What about CPU RAM Hard disk speed, bluetooth, etc? It is pointless argue about comparable when you are not comparing anything to start with.


----------



## Viro (Sep 21, 2006)

hawki18 said:


> Mac prices are lower for comparable hardware, were are you getting your prices at.  for $1100 your can get a dual core Acer laptop a 100 gb hd and ATI 1600 128mb the same card in the lower end MBP.  So you arugment does not hold water.



Have you ever used an Acer laptop? You're comparing it with the MBP? I had an Acer before I went to my Powerbook, and I can tell you, specs are not the only thing. The Acer felt flimsy. Pressing on they keyboard (not even that hard ...) would cause it to depress. The hinges of the screen felt week and you were always afraid you could break the damn thing. This is largely the case with laptops from HP/Dell/Packard-Bell/Acer/etc. The only laptop manufacturer who makes anything comparable in terms of quality seems to be Sony and perhaps Asus.

If you're comparing on specs alone, by all means go for the Acer. if you want a laptop which you won't be afraid to carry around for fear of breaking, Macs and Sony's are for you. Even the el-cheapo Macbook I'm using now feels far more solid than the usual PC laptops.


----------



## ElDiabloConCaca (Sep 21, 2006)

hawki18 said:


> Mac prices are lower for comparable hardware, were are you getting your prices at.  for $1100 your can get a dual core Acer laptop a 100 gb hd and ATI 1600 128mb the same card in the lower end MBP.  So you arugment does not hold water.


Next time back your claims up with a little proof before throwing random specifications at us and expecting that to completely disprove what I said.



> were are you getting your prices at.


I think this says, "From where are you getting your prices?" and the answer is here, as well as my own research:

http://www.macworld.com/2006/08/features/macproprice/index.php


----------



## fryke (Sep 21, 2006)

Comparing to Dell/hp/Sony etc. makes no sense out here in the free market. You can get a cheapo PC at half the price of a Mac mini. And while a customer might end up with a machine priced in the Mac mini's range, they won't even look at the Mac mini in the first place, because they go to the store that advertises computers at half the price. Not much Apple can do about that. If you want to call this comparison unfair, you might. But it's sadly how most people think. Cheap, not different.


----------



## HateEternal (Sep 21, 2006)

Viro said:


> The Acer felt flimsy...The only laptop manufacturer who makes anything comparable in terms of quality seems to be Sony and perhaps Asus.
> ...Even the el-cheapo Macbook I'm using now feels far more solid than the usual PC laptops.



My experience with an iBook is kind of opposite to that. The whole keyboard was kind of warped and moved when you typed on it. If you pressed on the corner of the laptop the plastic would move and creak. My Acer on the other hand feels really solid. Sure, it's ugly but it feels much more solid than the iBook. I know this isn't always the case but I always seem to find defects on Apple laptops... I don't know if it's just easier because of the clean design or what but I can almost always find a seam that doesn't look right.

That said I'd still have an Apple laptop over an Acer but that little bugger was an awesome deal when I got it, plus Apple was still on PPC.


----------



## Viro (Sep 21, 2006)

HateEternal said:


> My experience with an iBook is kind of opposite to that. The whole keyboard was kind of warped and moved when you typed on it. If you pressed on the corner of the laptop the plastic would move and creak. My Acer on the other hand feels really solid. Sure, it's ugly but it feels much more solid than the iBook. I know this isn't always the case but I always seem to find defects on Apple laptops... I don't know if it's just easier because of the clean design or what but I can almost always find a seam that doesn't look right.



I don't know about the iBooks, as I've never owned one . However, what you're saying about Acer is surprising. Can you tell me what model it was? I recently bought a Macbook after looking at a lot of different laptops, and Acers still looked flimsy to me. I checked out the Aspire, Travelmate and even Ferrari (oh, what ugly machines...) lines and they all felt the same.

edit:
Just remembered that the iBooks had an easily removable keyboard to get to the ram slots. Perhaps that's why the keyboard was flimsy and warped easily upon pressure?


----------



## fryke (Sep 21, 2006)

Often, people didn't correctly put the keyboard back into place on those iBooks, leaving it in a warped state. I found those keyboards to be very good indeed. But yeah, the flexibility of being able to remove it that easily made it feel a tad flimsy, of course. The worst thing about the iBooks, I think, was the weight, though. They were small, yet heavy, compared to ThinkPads of similar size. (The ThinkPads also feel more stable overall.)


----------



## HateEternal (Sep 22, 2006)

It's a TravelMate 3002. Specs are kind of in my sig. It cost me $1000 dollars about a year ago, has bluetooth, firewire, PCI-X port replicator port and at the time had fast RAM and a decent pentium M, PCMCIA slot, gig eithernet, 802.11g wifi and weighs about 3 lbs. The CDROM is external, which is fine because I hardly ever use it. Compared to iBooks at the time it was a much better deal. It's very thin but the construction is sturdy. The screen's hinge supports the screen much better than my iBook's ever did.

Also, on the iBook's  keyboard, the actual keyboard itself is warped and causes the weirdness. I was always secretly disapointed about the iBook, both by construction and performance. Certainly not the same experience as the PowerMac. Yea, maybe that's not a fair comparison...


----------



## Viro (Sep 23, 2006)

That's a really sweet deal to get a laptop like that for that price.


----------



## chevy (Sep 23, 2006)

fryke said:


> Comparing to Dell/hp/Sony etc. makes no sense out here in the free market. You can get a cheapo PC at half the price of a Mac mini. And while a customer might end up with a machine priced in the Mac mini's range, they won't even look at the Mac mini in the first place, because they go to the store that advertises computers at half the price. Not much Apple can do about that. If you want to call this comparison unfair, you might. But it's sadly how most people think. Cheap, not different.



During my last trip in the L.A. region, I saw the whole Mac line at Fry's... therefore people can go there with the intention to buy the cheapest PC and end up leaving with a Mac mini... or a Mac Pro !


----------

