Google didn't get where it is today by charging end users for software and charging them again and again for endless upgrades.

Back in the early Macintosh days (i.e. the mid- to late '80s), Apple used the OS to sell hardware. Upgrades were free.

Today, Apple sells music at 99 cents a track, but what they're really selling is iPods, iPhones, iMacs, and any other damn thing they can slap an "i" in front of. And while the music is available in 99-cent increments, the iTunes software -- which runs in Windows and OS X -- has always been free. iPods would've never gotten to be such a huge business in any other way.

It's no different for the OS.

With that in mind, Apple wins on the desktop -- and crushes Microsoft -- in one way:

Make OS X free -- or very cheap. And make it run on Windows-compatible PCs.

Everybody wants that new MacBook Air. They'll still want it, even if they can also run OS X on a crappy PC. While not getting $129 for each OS X upgrade, Apple would get market share, still move a whole lot of hardaware. And they would gain that all-important "mindshare."

Most people have heard of Linux, but few have seen it on the desktop, even though they "use" it every day when they browse the Web. Most have seen OS X, a significant portion have used it a bit, and a few are rabid fans.

And while I'd like to see OS X go free and open-source, I won't hold my breath on that one. As I said above, I'd prefer -- at a minimum -- that Apple port OS X to Windows PCs, i.e. make a native version that installs from CD and runs on non-Apple hardware.

But even making new versions of OS X free for Apple hardware would prompt more users to upgrade the software. When running the latest and greatest gets slow, they'd be more inclined to buy new hardware, most likely from Apple.

Right now I'm still running my 2003-era iBook on OS X 10.3. I saved $129 twice by not upgrading to 10.4 and 10.5. I can't even use Apple's newest Safari browser because it doesn't run on 10.3. Firefox does, so that's what I use. As a result, Apple misses out on any browser-generated ad revenue. Would 10.5 run well on my laptop? Who knows? I sure don't want to spend $129 to find out.

By flooding the market with a free or very cheap OS X, Apple could blunt the effects of Microsoft Windows, which customers pay for but don't really feel they're paying for because the cost is bundled into just about every PC sold.

Even if a free OS wouldn't fly at Apple HQ, if the company still ported OS X to Windows-compatible PCs, they could -- and should -- compete with Microsoft when it comes to pre-installed operating systems on non-Apple hardware.

Imagine if you could order a PC from Dell with Windows, Linux or OS X ... there would be real competition for the hearts and minds of computer users everywhere from the home to the enterprise.

And since Apple's hardware is so ultra-cool (and ultra-pricey), they'd probably sell even more of it if OS X had a much larger of the overall worldwide OS pie.

Posted by Steven Rosenberg at 5:00 AM | Permalink | Comments (7)

Since Macs are now mostly Intel-based, and since it's pretty well established that you can run Windows on a Mac, I began wondering what the possibilities were for running OS X on a PC -- a Windows PC, if you will, except without Windows or any other BS programs that you have to pay for.

I've just started poking around, but one of the places where people are trying to do this is InsanelyMac, where there is news, plus blogs and forums, dedicated to what it calls "the evolution of OSX86."

Many have said that the reason OS X runs so well is that it's tuned to and configured for a very specific and small set of hardware platforms. I'm sure that's true, and while there are plenty of Linux and BSD distributions that run on PCs (hundreds, in fact), the ability to run Apple's OS X on any platform you choose would be a game-changing development.

Plus there are no shortage of people who want to hack everything Apple makes, from iPods to iPhones, AppleTV and more. So why not OS X itself?

A better place to get started than InsanelyMac is the project's OSx86 Wiki, specifically its FAQ. Here's a sample:

Do I need Apple hardware to run Mac OS X?

Not anymore.

Projects such as OSx86 have succeeded in allowing the Intel-based version of Mac OS X to run on non-Apple hardware largely by bypassing the TPM in software.

The "Trusted Platform Module," or TPM, is a computer chip embedded inside Intel-based Macs to prevent the Intel-based version of Mac OS X from running on non-Apple hardware. (during installation of Mac OS X, Mac OS X interfaces with the TPM. If Mac OS X finds that the TPM doesn't exist, Mac OS X refuses to install or run.)

In building your "Hackintosh" however, you may want to keep as close to the hardware configuration of Intel-based Macs for the best compatibility. Intel Macs use (or have used) either a Core Solo, Core Duo, Core 2 Duo, or Xeon processor. For graphics cards, Intel Macs have seen Intel's GMA950; ATI's Mobility Radeon X1600, Radeon X1600, and Radeon X1900 XT; and nVidia's GeForce 7300GT, 7600GT, 8600M GT or Quadro FX4500.

Will Apple sell OS X for PCs?

No. Apple has repeatedly stated that OS X for Intel will only run on Apple hardware.

Of course Apple may change its mind at any time. Remember that Steve Jobs stated there would not be a video iPod anytime soon!

There could be many good reasons for Apple to let OSx86 spread on non proprietary computers. It could boost Apple's Hardware sales via a halo effect similar to the iPod one or simply allow them to up their OS market share. We'll see...

Of course, this is a big debate within the Mac community, because the release of Mac OS X for normal PCs could lead to many problems. Apple's primary reason for selling their computers is the huge profit margins on the hardware. If their operating system was available on any regular PC, they wouldn't make nearly as much profit from hardware sales. Drivers are not the issue however, as it is the responsibility of the hardware vendor to write drivers that are compatible with any given operating system.

I love this part: "... it is the responsibility of the hardware vendor to write drivers that are compatible with any given operating system." Pause for laugh.

But I like the word "Hackintosh," and will use it with impunity.

But is this illegal? I don't think any laws are being broken by the downloading of the various programs, images and the like, but it's certainly not kosher in terms of the Mac OS X user agreements. But I don't think the people engaging in this kind of activity think they're doing anything wrong. It's all in the service of hacking and bringing OS X to a platform that deserves it.

It goes like this: If Apple ported OS X to PC, we'd buy it, but they refuse to do so. The reasons are murky but probably wouldn't hold up to antitrust scrutiny, should such scrutiny be brought to bear (and it won't be). Apple is keeping OS X a Mac-only product in the interest of profit and not pissing off Microsoft (also known as "more profit").

But throw a hacker a bone, and s/he will chew it. You pay for Mac OS X (and Windows, for that matter) but you don't "own" your copy -- you're pretty much just renting it -- and your use of that code is severly restricted by the companies that really own it. With free open-source software -- including the Linux operating system -- under the GPL, you can modify the code and try to run it on any kind of hardware you please. If you offer that modded code to others, you must include the source so people can see what you're doing and make further improvement, if they so choose.

It's all about innovation and freedom.

And it's natural for people to bring that innovation to OS X, which uses BSD (Darwin, specifically) as its base. BSD is not under the GPL. It has a license that allows for modification of the code without sharing the source with others. That's one reason why Apple chose it instead of Linux, I imagine.

But to get a start on running OS X on your PC, Darwin is freely available (though not the same thing as the full OS X by a long shot).

Posted by Steven Rosenberg at 11:24 AM | Permalink | Comments (1)