OS X on non-Apple hardware: What will be the Apple response?

Posted: Thu Jul 23, 2009 11:07 am

Didn't know whether to put this in General or Flamebait. Decided on the latter.

I've often wondered why Apple never made a base level OS only Mac. (Well you would still have a text editor, image viewer and other typical sundries.)

The growing trend to make Hackintoshes seems to show a desire for less glamorous hardware with basic needs OS.

To me it makes sense for Apple to eventually hit this target. A boring little laptop or desktop that has very basic elements. Some people never use 2/3 the software that comes on Macs.

I would love a cheap, no frills, check my email and go to the library, computer that runs an OS that doesn't make me want to eat the barrel of a gun. Then I could afford to have a more potent Mac for design, video, etc. Right now, I essentially use a MBP to handle both because a base MacBook and then an iMac cost me too much.

Not that I'm bitching really. I just think you aren't hurting the coolness of the brand by having a bottom-tier computer in your lineup. And your hardware could still run both OS X and Windows.

And we really must ignore the Mini. It was a poorly executed attempt IMO.

So I wonder what you guys and gals think. Would you ever try the experiment above (assuming there were no software agreement violation of course)? Do you feel Apple will eventually offer a stripped down Mac?

Posted: Thu Jul 23, 2009 12:50 pm

I think they should. They are missing a potent market. I have a friend who uses her computer at least 75% for email. I bet if she weren't in business and needs to track her business email she wouldn't even own a computer. Plus a lot of peoples first computer is purpose driven and needs to be a simple machine. One person might want to organize photos of there grand kids or like my friend with her email. As they get more computer savvy they may want more but if you start on a PC you are likely to upgrade with a PC. The same goes for Apple.

Having said that I think they want to be seen as a Lexus type brand and you don't see entry level Lexus'. but they have Scions! So I think they should introduce a new entry level brand. I think the Apple Cinnamon has a nice ring to it.

Level 3 Joined: 02 Jan 2004 Posts: 4303 Location: Home

I'm currently playing with a Hackintosh that I bought and hacked myself a couple of weeks ago. Thinking about writing an article about it, actually.

That being said, current netbooks aren't the direction Apple should go, IMHO. The keyboard is atrocious because it is too cramped and the build quality is okay at best.

Keep in mind that Apple is a hardware company that happens to have a pretty cool OS to help sell the hardware. Netbooks have practically no margin whatsoever, which is hurting rather than helping the OEMs. However, selling the OS standalone for installation on these machines would necessitate raising the price for that OS in order to recover the costs involved in handling all of the support that goes with it. A hackintosh (right now) is NOT a perfect, seamless experience. There are some definite limitations that have to be worked out.

Member Joined: 21 Nov 2005 Posts: 763 Location: classified

I'm opposed to this, in the sense that it would be bad for Apple in the long run.

Here's a summary of why Apple is not considering this, from my favorite shrieking fanboy blog, "Roughly Drafted":

Quote:

Apple has framed its market by refusing to build cheap PCs or netbooks. That has resulted in Apple retaining a higher-end market, which it cultivates with low cost applications that demand “greater than netbook” performance, things like iPhoto and iMovie. By pinching off low end sales, Apple maintains a sustainable business of selling premium PCs. That’s also why it opposes other hardware makers trying to muscle into its business and steal away its sales with cheap hardware paired with its own software. If that model were sustainable on a smaller scale than Microsoft’s quarter billion per year market for Windows, Apple would have pursued it itself by selling Mac OS X to PC users and licensing it to other OEM hardware makers. It is not.

Microsoft can’t do what Apple is doing because it doesn’t make PC hardware sales decisions. It could only watch as its hardware partners pursued a downward spiral of ever-lower PC prices, achieved by offering low-end performance and features. Netbooks are just the latest example of this long running trend.

http://www.roughlydrafted.com/2009/02/26/why-windows-7-on-netbooks-wont-save-microsoft/

The author is sometimes an absolutist scaremonger, but he occasionally comes up with some real insight into Apple's business model. On this particular topic, I happen to agree with him wholeheartedly.

Posted: Thu Jul 23, 2009 5:00 pm

worker201,

True that's been Apple's market model. However all I am suggesting is adding a different line to the offering (or letting some older models linger). You still have the powerful argument of "see what you get for your money!". In a less expensive Mac for the basic user, and you can still run Windows if you need to. The whole 2-in-1 argument.

The other argument is to offer the usual Apple setups for each model but allow for a totally stripped version and let the consumer ad the hardware and software they want.

I agree with Intruder that you don't wan't to get into the $200 laptop pool. I probably should have stated clearly I mean an entry level computer. It just seems the fad is to hack OS X onto netbooks right now.

My thoughts are of the people who lay down the $700 HP Whatever vs the $1200 Macbook comparison. Fairly equal computers just the HP would have less refinement in the included software, generally speaking.

Most PC hardware companies are simply repackaging -1 technology for their Base computers. So you could still offer earlier Core 2 type Macs. Apple, like most companies, want you to by the next thing—so they don't tout the fact that it seems you can get more miles out of your Mac than you can with most other hardware manufacturers. (Again, blame the OS). I seem to see more old Macs than I see old Windows machines. So why not leverage that a bit more without actually saying it?

Now Intruder's comment about selling OS separately and driving up the cost. I'm not looking for Apple to release the OS to all markets. But it does bear the thought that Apple can offer iWork and iLife so cheap because they recoup that cost in the computers they sell. I reality, iWork should be $200 or more.

Posted: Thu Jul 23, 2009 5:26 pm

OK this is totally off topic but as long as we are talking about hacking...I met an IBM engineer a year or so ago and he told me that some of the engineers he works with have hacked there Thinkpads to run OS X. HE HE!

Member Joined: 21 Nov 2005 Posts: 763 Location: classified

I think that what you are asking is nearly impossible. The main reason that the HP has to be $700 is that the Toshiba and the Sony and the Gateway and the Dell standing next to it at the store are also $700. If there was also a $1200 HP there, it would not sell very well. Plus, the PC market has settled into a comfortable pattern - they keep selling whatever tech was available last week, and customers reluctantly buy, knowing the tech will be obsolete next week. It's a recipe for volume sales, but there are so many competitors that they have to shave margins dangerously thin in order to stay afloat. The result is that prices have fallen while computing power has risen.

Apple, on the other hand, is urging people up the ladder. Each new Mac is a little faster, a little bigger, and a little more expensive than the last. They add neat features and core framworks to the OS in every release, slowly increasing the power required by the OS. Early Tiger computers are already struggling with Leopard, and by the time 10.7 is released, computers that shipped with Tiger won't even be upgradeable anymore.

Anyway, the point being that Apple doesn't want you to hold onto your old computer, or buy a cheap computer. What they really want is for you to buy a new computer everytime OSX is upgraded. Of course you're not going to do that, because you're not that rich. So their main goal is to patiently wait for you to give up and buy a new computer. Which they will then happily sell to you. Given this basic business model, a low-priced -1 computer would be a fatal step backwards for Apple.

Posted: Thu Jul 23, 2009 10:44 pm

worker201 wrote:

I think that what you are asking is nearly impossible.

I think what is being talked about here is to some degree already being done. iPhone & iPod touch. I don't think a brand that is a entry level to Mac would sully the Mac image a bit. It would bolster it and bring in new consumers into the mix. It would have to be special in some ways, do things that you can't do on entry level PC's, and provide upgrade paths to real Mac's.

Member Joined: 21 Nov 2005 Posts: 763 Location: classified

sidewall wrote:

I don't think a brand that is a entry level to Mac would sully the Mac image a bit. It would bolster it and bring in new consumers into the mix. It would have to be special in some ways, do things that you can't do on entry level PC's, and provide upgrade paths to real Mac's.

Well, let's imagine Apple manages to put together a bunch of not-that-great hardware and can sell it with OS for $800. For starters, what would that OS be? If it's Leopard, most of the market for MacBooks disappears overnight. If it's some stripped down version of OSX, that means that Apple not only has to write it, but provide support for it, which is incredibly expensive. Such an expense is risky for a new product line filling an untested product niche. It's much more profitable for Apple to write one OS for all their computers.

Even so, you've just gutted one of Apple's most important markets - college freshmen. Those thousands of parents who buy MacBooks for their kids in August and September (probably at least 35% of Apple's computer sales) would much rather get a $800 computer than a $1100 computer.

This all ignores the fact, though, that Apple would be hard pressed to put together an $800 computer that would be worthy of the brand. A lot of the cheapness of Dells and HPs comes from volume sales - large batches of chips, large orders of plastic parts. Apple can't compete with them, so they would have to cut corners somewhere else - an older processor, less RAM - which brings us back to writing a new OS.

I totally understand why soooooo many people want them to do this, and why soooooo many people think it seems like a good idea, but if you think about the economics and the marketplace, it just doesn't add up. I'm sure certain boardrooms at Apple have rehashed all these discussions thousands of times before, and come up with the same answers every time. A little faith - if it was worth doing, they probably would have done it already.

Level 3 Joined: 12 Feb 2003 Posts: 1293 Location: NYC

Quote:

That being said, current netbooks aren't the direction Apple should go, IMHO. The keyboard is atrocious because it is too cramped and the build quality is okay at best.

FWIW, the tiny keyboards are great for those of us with small hands. Wink

In any case, what I'd really like to see would be a mid-range headless Mac -- something with more oomph than the Mini. I've got two nice big monitors, and I don't want to be buying and discarding a monitor with every purchase like with the iMac. I'd rather spend the $400 that a 24-inch LCD panel costs on a faster processor, more powerful video card, etc. You could get a pretty nice headless machine for $1200 - 1500 if they were willing to go down that road. And the Mac Pro is just plain overkill if you're not doing heavy duty video or 3D rendering, etc. -- especially at $2.5K+

Posted: Fri Jul 24, 2009 8:45 am

Another reason to consider offering a base level computer is to actually capture those who can't afford a Mac as they are. This isn't 1990 where computers are a luxury; and you still pay all you bills with a check and people frown at you when you use a credit card. Computers are necessary in this age.

I guess my gripe with Apple is they want to tout their computers are for everyone. However the offerings, and thus pricing, are niche market. Thus the elitism tag gets thrown in.

I'm not touting free computers for the socialist masses here. Just saying, why continue to ignore a profitable market. You don't have to sell crap (i.e. half the $200 dollar craptops and eMachines). Just Mac Lite and still get a profit.

The only impossibility I see in this is that Apple makes too much bank on those of us willing (capable) to pay for a better experience. And I'm not going to boycott Apple anytime soon as they make a great product worth the price when you consider what you get.

Posted: Fri Jul 24, 2009 8:55 am

worker201 wrote:

Well, let's imagine Apple manages to put together a bunch of not-that-great hardware and can sell it with OS for $800. For starters, what would that OS be? If it's Leopard, most of the market for MacBooks disappears overnight. If it's some stripped down version of OSX, that means that Apple not only has to write it, but provide support for it, which is incredibly expensive. Such an expense is risky for a new product line filling an untested product niche. It's much more profitable for Apple to write one OS for all their computers...

I'm not sure anyone's saying a dumbed down OS, like Windows does. The full OS X minus extra software would be enough to win many over at the price tag.

You may be right about Apple having investigated this avenue. Maybe the way they work the budget and R&D for the apps wouldn't allow for a less expensive base Mac without driving up the cost of the fatted Macs.

Still, makes for good discussion. Smile

Level 3 Joined: 02 Jan 2004 Posts: 4303 Location: Home

Well, Apple just posted a great quarter in a terrible economy, so they are clearly doing something right. And that's without a netbook or mid-range headless Mac.

Posted: Wed Sep 02, 2009 8:48 pm

I think it would be a demographic outside of Apple's target group. Apple has a large consumer base of people who are frustrated with Microsoft and most of the PC world's excessive variety. Sure, variety is great for a lot of people but sometimes the idea of only having to choose between a handful of configurations makes the experience that much easier on the consumer.

"Macbook or Macbook Pro? Well the pro sounds like it's for experienced users who need extra power so I'll stick with the Macbook."
That same question around the difference between Asus EEE PC 1000HA and 1000HE would spin a lot of minds around.

I mean, does the name 1000HA, dimension, inspiron, Q1000 or various other real/fake model numbers really make the consumer feel any more confident about their purchase or decision? I mean, there are literally employees at Best Buy that I've known for years who know their way around computers who had to restock entire shelves because the G10T6-A was an almost identical box to a G20T6-A and they have completely different RAM/HD/proc configurations!

Of course that's a small detail of the PC world but it's a good representation of the overwhelming vastness and selection that the PC world offers, and it intimidates many consumers (including my grandparents!). I feel that if Apple sold a crippled or otherwise "low end" Mac, they might not understand the limitations posed by a low end computer since many buy online due to scattered stores, etc and it would only cause a mess later on.

TL;DR - PCs and their confusing model numbers/Vista versions (Basic, Premium, Ultimate?), and overall vastness in choice can make some users (who make up a good chunk of Mac users) intimidated and we don't need to go mimicking their ideas and crippling Macs with fewer features.

-teh