Top Ten Apple Rumors of All Time

An anonymous reader writes "CNET have taken a look back at 30 years of Apple rumors during which we have witnessed Apple's 'rise, fall, and rise again, like a kind of technological Jesus Christ.' Some of the rumors are outrageous, and some came true. The list includes such treasures as the Apple-Nintendo merger, which the article calls 'utterly outlandish,' and the persistent rumor that Apple will release Mac OS X for PC — described as 'so counter-productive and financially damaging for Apple that we doubt the company has ever seriously considered it.' There is also mention of the iPhone, which CNET says is 'an elaborate hoax dreamed up by Steve Jobs to keep journalists busy.'"

Mac OS X for the PC

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually, the criticisms of this particular rumour were spot on. Apple would have to be insane to release Mac OS X for the PC.

The distinction people miss though, is that Apple didn't release Mac OS X for the PC. They just built new Macs around an Intel CPU. That's not the same thing as releasing Mac OS X for PCs.

Re:

[ArcherB]

Releasing OSX for the PC would allow Apple to compete with MS on MS's own level without hampering the end user with Apples expensive hardware requirements.

Re:

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Re:

[ArcherB]

If they did it today, MS could kill Apple by suspending development of MS Office for the Mac. When Apple has a complete suite of business apps, then it's a different story.

That would be true if Apple's primary target consumer was the business. Since Apple is targeting the home, all they need is a "good enough" office suite. Open Office should fit.

Re:

[JavaSavant]

So long as MS were to make any effort to maintain compatibility, I might agree with you. Seeing that if Microsoft were to suspend Office development for the Mac, there is no reason to believe that they would then make any attempts to make the two office suites interoperable. Having a platform office suite isn't enough in today's day in age. It needs to be able to create documents that are readable by everyone.

Re:

[masdog]

For everything Microsoft tried to break, though, OpenOffice developers could, and probably would, reverse engineer or develop workarounds. Consider Microsoft's own handling of the .doc format. They tried to introduce quirks between different versions of Word that would force people to upgrade to the newest version.

I believe Microsoft actually tried something like this once. Most OEM PCs, the ones you buy at Best Buy or Walmart anyway, would come with Microsoft Works. Works, for some unknown reason, w

Re:

[Junior J. Junior III]

<cough>iWork [apple.com]</cough>

Re:

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Re:

[Korin43]

Spreadsheets are lame, like that guy in the suit. Geez, don't you know anything about hip teen culture??

Re:

[shawb]

Pages does seem to have some table functionality, although I have no idea how well featured it is. But Pages does look a lot easier to make something look good or even professional than Word, which fights you every step of the way. Although the video [apple.com] on Apple's site makes it look like there is an over-reliance on templates, which means anything you do will look just like anything else done in pages.

Re:

[ceoyoyo]

Open Office is a near impossible sell to Windows users. OO is pretty much the opposite of everything Mac users expect in their software -- it's big, slow and unpolished.

Re:

[mrchaotica]

iWork is big too -- on my iMac, it apparently takes up 568.2MB. The problem with OpenOffice is mostly the "unpolished" part, I think.

Re:

[ceoyoyo]

That's tiny. Mine is about 2GB. But most of it is templates and examples. My copy of Aperture installs at well over 2GB but it's all tutorials and example files. Chuck all of that stuff and the app itself is about 25MB.

Now, that doesn't mean it takes up any less space on the average user's drive, but it does mean that when you actually go to use the program it works like a 25MB program and not a 2GB one. Whereas OO is so slow it's behaving like it's full couple-hundred-megabyte bulk.

I'd love a good alt

Re:

[Gordonjcp]

MS could kill Apple by suspending development of MS Office for the Mac

Actually, if MS killed off Office for the Mac, it wouldn't make a lot of difference. People use Macs for audio, video and graphics work, which you can't do in Windows.

Re:

[king-manic]

Actually, if MS killed off Office for the Mac, it wouldn't make a lot of difference. People use Macs for audio, video and graphics work, which you can't do in Windows.

Actually the majority of the tools needed to do video/audio on a Mac have equivilents ont he PC. The Artistic types simply prefer the mac or need retraining to use a PC as efficiently. To them it's not worth it but there isn't a real reason for the difference, and hasn't been for some time. Some of the nice Max onyl tools do provide some reaso

Re:

[Mozk]

In my experience Macs have better color management than Windows environments, mostly due to Macs having a smaller set of hardware which it runs on. Switch the Mac's LCD with a CRT and it's even better. Perhaps color management isn't as important for audio work, but a lot of audio-related software is written for Mac OS, and it's sometimes difficult to find Windows equivalents that perform similarly. It took me a while to find something like Audio Hijack for Windows.

Macs do have some deficiencies (inefficienc

Re:

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Re:

[skahshah]

You're right ! Correction :

audio, video, graphics work and being serious, which you can't do in Windows.

Re:

[krakelohm]

I think the Apple expensive hardware myth had been pretty much debunked. True Apple does not sell $300 PC's, but for comparative quality machines Apple is priced just right in my eyes.

Re:

[ArcherB]

I think the Apple expensive hardware myth had been pretty much debunked. True Apple does not sell $300 PC's, but for comparative quality machines Apple is priced just right in my eyes.

Well, I should have pointed out that I don't buy expensive Dell hardware either. I roll my own. Maybe I should have said "proprietary" hardware.

Re:Mac OS X for the PC

[ArcherB]

WTF dude, you fab your own processor and motherboards? Solder your own memory?

"You keep using that word...I do not think it means what you think it means..."

I use it meaning that I buy the parts I want and put them in the configuration I want. I do not let some engineer under pressure from marketing make those decisions for me. I use "roll my own" in the same way that I would roll my own cigarettes. I don't grow the "tobacco" and pulp wood for my own paper. I buy it all in a store in separate components and put it all together myself.

Re:

[Mozk]

It's true, hand-rolled computers have a more natural flavor than pre-packaged ones. But then again, if you go with the Dell brand, you don't even need a lighter; they come with self-ignition and everything! Just don't put them in your pocket...

Expensive memory

[Jerry Smith]

Usually 1.5x to 2x the price of mid-high quality ram. getting about the same quality ram off the shelf would cost you $160 or so to go from 1gb to 2gb.

I agree heartily. The prices are 'premium' while the quality just averages 'good'. My guess is that the AppleStore charges those prices to give the retailer a break. Only thing I can think of.

Re:Mac OS X for the PC

[Bastian]

Releasing OSX for the PC would allow Apple to compete with MS on MS's own level without hampering the end user with Apples expensive hardware requirements.

That's true, but it's only a tiny, tiny little part of the truth. The full truth is that Apple is nowhere near being prepared for such a move and would have little to no chance of succeeding if they were to attempt to compete with Microsoft in the PC market. They could try, but it would be about as smart as me trying to best a lion in unarmed combat. Why is this?

Drivers
Application support
Microsoft's bundling deals with nearly every hardware manufacturer
Microsoft already having a massive headstart on the PC market (essentially 100%)

As well as an unknown number of other compatibility issues. For example, Apple includes lots of libraries that are heavily optimized for specific hardware, such as VecLib. Right now VecLib works with G3's, G4's, G5's, Core Duo, and Core 2 Duo, and only certain chipsets for each of those CPUs. I have no idea if VecLib would work on a Pentium III or a Celeron. I do know that if it doesn't work, it will in turn break a whole lot of OS X applications, including a large number of the ones I've written.

Also keep in mind that the first four issues all support each other. For example, Microsoft doesn't have to write drivers for every random piece of hardware that comes out for the PC market, because hardware manufacturers do that for them. For Apple to jumpstart OS X on the PC market, they would have to spend time and money getting a whole lot of hardware working, and I wouldn't be surprised if the cost of doing so is greater than all the money in Apple's coffers.

So drivers alone most likely renders OS X for PCs as something that just can't possibly happen outside of Apple critics' wet dreams. Add all the other issues on top of that and it's easy to see why CNet pointed out that the idea is so silly that it's doubtful that Apple has ever even given a moment's serious consideration to the idea.

Re:

[ArcherB]

Of course, Apple would need stringent hardware requirements at first, but things would loosen up as time passes. Remember, there were not drivers for Win95 in '95, no drivers for Win2000 in 2000, and there are few drivers for Vista now.

I don't know enough about Apple coding to comment about VecLib or any other required libraries, but I see no reason why a software emulation couldn't take over (other than performance) until specific drivers could be written and applied as hardware detection warranted.

I neve

Re:

[Bastian]

Of course, Apple would need stringent hardware requirements at first, but things would loosen up as time passes. Remember, there were not drivers for Win95 in '95, no drivers for Win2000 in 2000, and there are few drivers for Vista now.

No offense, but your counter-example is extremely naive.

When new versions of Windows come out they include a compatibility layer that makes it possible to use drivers for older versions of Windows. Furthermore, lack of driver support isn't nearly as crippling for Windows bec

Re:

[adrianmonk]

The full truth is that Apple is nowhere near being prepared for such a move and would have little to no chance of succeeding if they were to attempt to compete with Microsoft in the PC market. They could try, but it would be about as smart as me trying to best a lion in unarmed combat. Why is this?

I would argue that Apple's chances of success are higher than you are estimating. BUT, I still agree with your conclusion that it might not be smart for Apple to do it. Let me explain.

Basically, I think A

Re:

[westlake]

If Apple were to pre-load Widows on Macs, or even better, partner with a PC maker like Dell to load and sell, they could make a nice profit selling desirable, expensive hardware, get massive application and driver support, and Microsoft would actually be on their side.

This assumes:

a) customers will jump at the chance to maintain two operating systems, software libraries, and skill sets.

b) customers will take equal delight in having to maintain hardware compatibility with both OSX and Vista.

c] that the di

Re:

[Total_Wimp]

I guess I wasn't clear. I'm not talking having both OSs, just Windows. It would be a Pure Windows OS sitting on top of pure Apple hardware. The market would be exactly the same consumers who currently purchase Windows computers from Dell or HP.

I know, a lot of Apple folk would consider this setup an abomination. But the truth is that Windows users don't really give a shit about OSX. If they did, they would just buy a Mac. Windows users want to use Windows, so selling them a Windows box is the best way

Re:

[istewart]

They may well do it, but at the same time, they will make it just hard enough to use Windows for it to be annoying, and if people want it easy, they'll subtly recommend purchasing Parallels or VMware. That's what Boot Camp does. I have Windows installed, but I only use it for a couple games, and it's annoying to boot into Windows just for that. Under your idea, a few Windows PC customers may well buy an Apple primarily for Windows with OS X as an extra bonus, but Apple would stand to benefit if they could c

Re:

[rucs_hack]

that would pitch them into a gui arms war that they would find hard to win, and the loss could cost them dearly.

Yes Apple have always had better stuff (or so I think), but microsoft have such a huge pot of cash to mis-inform/cajole potential buyers, that they wouldn't stand a chance in direct competition. Better to let things develop as they are, with Apples hardware getting an ever larger mindshare.

Re:

[ArcherB]

that would pitch them into a gui arms war that they would find hard to win, and the loss could cost them dearly.

Yes Apple have always had better stuff (or so I think), but microsoft have such a huge pot of cash to mis-inform/cajole potential buyers, that they wouldn't stand a chance in direct competition. Better to let things develop as they are, with Apples hardware getting an ever larger mindshare.

It wouldn't be easy, but keep in mind that in the beginning, Apple was bigger than Microsoft. Compatibility

Re:

[rucs_hack]

I think they had the right idea too. Life would be so much easier if the pc didn't have so many possible variations in hardware.

Alas, the real world doesn't work like that, or not since IBM released the pc spec they used for anyone to use.

My only problem with apple is the cost of their machines, and that just because I'm not overloaded with cash. Otherwise I'd own all macs. As it is I have to use many pc's for cluster work.

Re:

[14CharUsername]

Yeah, because Apple sure doesn't want people to buy their expensive hardware.

Re:

[king-manic]

Releasing OSX for the PC would allow Apple to compete with MS on MS's own level without hampering the end user with Apples expensive hardware requirements.

About 50% of the Apple advantage is the hardware and how it "just works". The majority of stability issues on a non malware/worm infested Windows Pc is due to poor drivers. Apple would be stupid to step into that mire.

Re:

[lseltzer]

That would be great for Mac users, but not so good for Apple. Remember one of the first things Steve Jobs did when he came back was to stop allowing 3rd parties to build Mac-compatible systems. He wants to control the hardware sale as well as the software.

Re:

[ChatHuant]

The reason Jobs got rid of the 3rd party manufacturers is because it was cannibalizing their own sales. It almost put them out of business the first time, and the prospects look about the same if they entered that arena again. Please explain how Apple bankrupting themselves is good for Mac users.

Ok, here are a few ways

• users would have choice (choice is good, remember?)
• competing companies will have a strong motivation to come up with innovation
• smaller companies will expand into vertical markets and n

Re:

[ChatHuant]

You're ignoring a simple fact that invalidates all your points. If Apple dies, OS X dies with it. If OS X dies, so does the hypothetical clone Mac market.

Not at all; first, even if Apple fails, current OSX users would still be able to run their existing programs and get hardware and application support from their hardware vendor and the application developer.

Second, if Apple failed, OSX would be one of the major saleable assets - one of the clone manufacturers would buy it immediately. It's not unprece

Re:

[ArcherB]

You mean, the expensive hardware that Apple sells at a high profit margin?
Yeah, the hardware that suffers from economies of scale.

Besides, Microsoft seems to be doing OK without selling that high profit hardware. How does the MS profit margin compare to Apples?

Re:

[JimBobJoe]

The distinction people miss though, is that Apple didn't release Mac OS X for the PC

On this note, one of the more fascinating rumors that I remember hearing (a lot actually) during the late 1990s when Apple didn't have an oar to paddle with--was that Apple would build the next Mac OS around the NT kernal.

In retrospect, I find it more plausible today that they would have/could have done that than I did then.

Re:

[kosmosik]

> The distinction people miss though, is that Apple didn't
> release Mac OS X for the PC.

Well that depends on definition of a PC. There are few:

1. A PC is a Personal Computer which Macs always were. Just from the begining. With this definition Mac is and always was a PC.

2. A PC as an Intel/x86 clone - well now Mac *is* an Intel PC and can run Windows and other PC OSes - so it is a PC. Therefore Apple released Mac OS X PCs.

The point you was trying to make is that Apple makes Mac OS X for Apple-Branded-P

Funny that...

[mbessey]

I was just cleaning up my office and came across my Rhapsody for PC install discs, as well as the Yellow Box for Windows CD. I can't quite bring myself to throw them away - I should make a diorama of "stuff I worked on at Apple that never shipped".

Rise/fall/rise

[sczimme]

"CNET have taken a look back at 30 years of Apple rumors during which we have witnessed Apple's 'rise, fall, and rise again, like a kind of technological Jesus Christ.'

Or, you know, like a yo-yo.

Re:

[__aaclcg7560]

If it was a yo-yo running another popular OS, the string would break and the user dead from a virus infection.

Re:

[M-G]

Yeah, but Jobs and Woz were probably both virgins at Apple's birth.

Re:

[dangitman]

A holy yo-yo, that is.

Watch out, this could cause a schism with pastafarians and kibologists.

Like a kind of technological Jesus Christ

[Anonymous Coward]

He didn't play a lot of games either.

And the list

[JayTech]

1. Apple to buy Nintendo 2. Mac OS for PC users 3. The return of Newton 4. Apple to buy BeOS 5. The secret OSX build 6. The Apple iPhone 7. iTunes as a record label 8. Widescreen Video iPod 9. 30TH anniversary Mac 10. Apple to buy Disney

Re:And the list (Formatted)

[zcubed]

1. Apple to buy Nintendo
2. Mac OS for PC users
3. The return of Newton
4. Apple to buy BeOS
5. The secret OSX build
6. The Apple iPhone
7. iTunes as a record label
8. Widescreen Video iPod
9. 30TH anniversary Mac
10. Apple to buy Disney

Sun/Apple rumor has been alive for years

[Infonaut]

That was a big one [uakom.sk] for a while.

Seems now the rumors have flipped [marketwatch.com] on that one.

Re:

[CrazyTalk]

When I saw the "30th anniversary Mac", I did some quick math - Mac came out in 1984, plus 30 years equals 2014 - it didn't make sense until I realized they meant the 30th anniversary of APPLE. In which case, the 30th anniversary computer should be a new version of the Apple ][ - now THAT would be cool. (OK technically the Apple 1, but that would be kind of silly)

Re:

[Malfourmed]

The return of Newton

The Newton will return ... as the iSaac!

Re:

[BlueStraggler]

It would take balls to name anything the iSaac.

Re:

[Malfourmed]

That would be the model for French writers: ballSaac

Mixed Metaphor

[Tackhead]

> CNET have taken a look back at 30 years of Apple rumors during which we have witnessed Apple's 'rise, fall, and rise again, like a kind of technological Jesus Christ.

...or toilet seat, yo-yo, and Windows server, for that matter.

Which reminds me of an ancient Minbari textfile I found once.

"We are Insanely Grey.
We stand between the candle and the flame.
The darkness and the light.
The marketroid and the engineer.
Between the Jobs and the Woz."

Re:

[WilliamSChips]

Wait, an ancient Minbari textfile in English? Shouldn't it be in Minbari, or am I missing something?

Re:Mixed Metaphor

[Knara]

Though attempting to avoid spoilers for Babylon 5 may be outdated at this point, I'll just point out that if the term "ancient" means the standard Minbari "A thousand years ago when Valen came", then it's entirely possible that the text could be in English, given that Valen knew English (or, at least, Earth Standard).

Re:

[WilliamSChips]

Okay, so time travel. Got it.

iPhone

[sgt.greywar]

The iPhone meme is my favorite here. Despite the fact that Cisco owns the rights to iPhone and has for years even Slashdot has people who simply refuse to believe. I actually own an "iPhone" from and it ain't Apple folks. Never will be either. Its just a Skype phone.

Caught up on names

[Bastian]

The focus of the rumor is not the name iPhone, that's just the popular name for the rumor because Apple prefixes everything with a lowercase I. The point of the rumor is the idea that Apple might make a cell phone. It'd be essentially the same rumor whether it's called the iCell, the MacPhone, the PhoneBook Pro, or even if the phone were going to be called the iChat and Apple's instant messaging client were going to just be renamed Bonjour AV or something.

Too Literal

[SuperKendall]

I actually own an "iPhone" from and it ain't Apple folks.

Yes we all know Cisco owns the 'iPhone" trademark.

However it's just as obvious Apple CAN release a phone and name it something else. The name "iPhone" is simply symbolic of a phone from Apple that can also work with the same data an iPod works with and probably have a similar interface. You are being way to literal in claiming that just because Cisco has released a phone apple cannot because one name in the vast universe of possible names is now taken...

That said I'm only about 50% sure Apple will really release a phone, and it's not just a hoax as CNet is claiming. Personally I would like a more fully featured phone that could work on an MVNO network just as Virgin Mobile phones do today (no virgin mobile phone supports Bluetooth, for example), and also a phone that synchronized better with a computer and was more seamless to use as a data connection (something you cannot get with TMobile pay as you go plans even if the phone supports it). So there is a lot Apple could bring to a phone, I just don't know if they really want to enter that market.

Re:Too Literal

[Hawthorne01]

I think with new Apple products, it comes down to this:

If it's a gadget that Steve Jobs uses in his everyday life, he wants it to be better. And if it makes sense for Apple to build it, they do.

Steve uses computers - Apple improves the Mac line and OS X to where they're the most stylish, well-designed computers on the market.

Steve listens to music - Apple comes out with the iPod

Steve doesn't play video games - I'm an unabashed Mac fanboy, but I gotta admit that OS X just blows for game selection.

Steve uses a cellphone - Hmmm..... Now here's where it gets interesting. Is there a cell phone on the market today that even approaches the power, design and ease of use of a Mac or an iPod? Obviously, no. Now, is Steve willing to shake up the cell phone industry like he did the music biz?

Aye, there's the rub.

Re:

[kosmosik]

> Steve uses a cellphone - Hmmm..... Now here's where it gets interesting.

Quite a different matter. Steve likes to control things. They have a tight grip over iPods/iTunes (main revenue stream) - they own it. They have tight grip on Mac OS X - it can run only their hardware.

In fact it is a semi monopoly. Thiking of a PC I can get a PC that runs Windows/Linux whatever from any vendor I like. Be it IBM/Lenoovo, Dell, HP, smaller shops etc. - if I don't like HP I go to Dell and vice versa.

Now if from some r

Control...

[SuperKendall]

So basically with all above in mind Apple WILL NOT go into cellphones since in this market they are not dictating the rules - the service provider are. Also the cellphone market is saturated so I don't really imagine what Apple can bring to it.

I agree with your basic premise (control). However, that is what makes the chances of them coming out with a phone 50/50 in my mind.

True they do not exactly control the networks, nor would they build thier own or rely only on WiMax or some other crazy scheme. Howeve

Re:

[kosmosik]

> I have used Nokias and they like before, but although the
> interface s better often again signal quality is low,

And you think that oh-so-great-praise-Apple can make, a better phone than companies that do it for years? Nokia, Ericsson and so fotrth right now do great phones and lots of research on communication and such. So I am not exactly convinced that if Apple would do a Phone it would have better signal qualit. In fact I can also think the opposite - since Apple is known for doing stupid stuff l

Re:

[Bastard of Subhumani]

The name "iPhone" is simply symbolic of a phone from Apple that can also work with the same data an iPod works with and probably have a similar interface

I'd so totally enjoy entering phone numbers - or even better, SMS messages - with that little wheel thingy.

Re:

[sgt.greywar]

Sometimes that is true but looking back through Slash you will find that many of the "stories" about the release of an Apple phone actually are sparked by the new release of an actual Cisco iPhone product that Apple fanbois leapt upon with the breathless credulity of a Myspacer forwarding to their first chain letter.

Re:

[Dunbal]

The name clearly won't be "iPhone" as another company owns the copyright on that name.

      Interesting how, due to the now draconian copyright laws, people are trying to copyright things that really are only covered by trademarks...

yet more 'technologial jesus' jokes

[192939495969798999]

technological Jesus's mac doesn't crash. Of course, the miracle is that neither does his windows PC!

technological Jesus downloads just 1 song onto his iPod, and 500 people can listen to it simultaneously.

technological Jesus just has to touch a windows PC, and it turns into a mac.

Alright Dotters, let's get this out of the way.

[Dystopian Rebel]

With just one round-house kick, Technological Jesus can stagger Chuck Norris.

Re:

[__aaclcg7560]

Anyone can beat Chuck Norris. Can Technological Jesus beat Santa Claus?

Re:

[Dunbal]

With just one round-house kick, Technological Jesus can stagger Chuck Norris.

      Only in Kansas...

Re:

[rob1980]

Technological Jesus extracts confessions from Jack Bauer.

Re:

[WilliamSChips]

And when he touches the Mac, it turns into a Linux computer.

Re:

[Oliver Defacszio]

And I forgive him, for he know not what he doth.

Most disapointing Apple rumor of all time....

[amichalo]

I was shocked that after I forwarded a personal email from Steve Jobs to 100 of my closest friends, I did NOT receive a free iPod as promised.

Re:

[Jerry Smith]

I bet you received a nasty email back from Steve Jobs.

At least that's what happened when I posted one of his emails to a mail list. (And the reason he replied was because I CC'ed him with a list post, so I had reason to post it on the list.)

Gil Amelio, is that you?!

I think they left out the biggest one

[DreadfulGrape]

"Apple will be out of business in X years."

Re:

[tbone1]

I think my old friends at The Mac Observer [macobserver.com] did a great thing when they came up with the Apple Death Knell counter. It's interesting, for those of us who follow this sort of thing, what some of the Death Knells involve and who makes them and why. Heck, I think the editor-in-chief even included himself once.

Re:

[Phat_Tony]

You forgot the word "beleaguered."

It's "Beleaguered Apple will be out of business in X years," with X usually approximately equal to 5.

Re:

[jjeffries]

You're expecting it in about 10 years, then?

Apples Keep Doctors Away

[aapold]

That's my favorite rumor anyway....

"The Secret OS X Build"? Staggering?

[argent]

OS X started out running on Intel.

The idea that Apple *wouldn't* keep a version running on Intel was always the staggering thing about this. It's like you said "Prince Charles has routine health checkups" and got the response "How do you know? have you ever seen him?"

Off all these 'wrong' rumors...

[turnitover]

...how many of them were started or at least propogated -- as news -- by the editors of CNET? The "Apple will be out of business" one that was mentioned by /.ers but elided over by TFA, was certainly an example.

The VERY BIGGEST OF THEM ALL

[litewoheat]

They forgot the rumor that's been around since the Apple I:

Apple is going out of business.

and the difference between Apple and Jesus is that

[porky_pig_jr]

Apple did got resurrected.

Re:

[nutznboltz2003]

Apple Computers actually cost the same as PCs when you consider all the features that they include as "standard".
Oh wait, that's under the top ten rationalizations of Apple fanboys, my bad.

Actually, back when iLife first came out, that was a very compelling package that did not exist by default with Windows, and it did help even the cost. Granted, over time, Windows has caught up very nicely, and the RC candidates of Vista Ultimate included pretty much the same things as the iLife suite. Some are not as nice (Windows Movie Maker still lags behind iMovie), but they are getting there.

Everyone makes excuses for what they buy, and a lot of people like to mock things they don't fully underst

Re:

[WilliamSChips]

Only if you buy a computer OEM. Something I would never do for a desktop unless I needed a huge number of them.

Re:

[beelsebob]

Except that by crippling it, we'll be back to the bad old days of "Don't use MacOS, it's a baby's OS, it can't do everything."

Re:

[WilliamSChips]

The myth continues because they tried to do Mac-clones once and it failed for them. Personally, I'm ambivalent on the issue liking neither Mac software nor hardware

Re:Why does this idiot myth continue?

[xero314]

Comparing Apple to Microsoft and stating that apple could be competitive in the generic PC OS world, is a little short sighted, and off the mark. One of the aspects that people like about Apple products is that they work, out of the box, 100% of the time. When you turn on a Macintosh, for example, and install the OS (assuming you wanted to install a different version than it came with) you don't have to go searching for drivers and you don't have to worry about hardware compatibility issues. This is because Macs only run on a small subset of possible hardware that has been tested to work with their software.

It would be foolish for Apple to release OS X for generic hardware. OS X has remained stable and secure over the years because of Apples complete control over the hardware. You just can't do that when it is expected to run on any hardware.

Now if they wanted to release an API that could be used to develope software that could then run on any OS that supports the API, that would be another story. Then those that like the stability that comes with a OS hardware package could continue with Mac, and someone else could create an OS for generic hardware that ran the same exact applications (without out the need for seperate and/or conditional compilation).

Re:

[Nasarius]

Now if they wanted to release an API that could be used to develope software that could then run on any OS that supports the API, that would be another story. Then those that like the stability that comes with a OS hardware package could continue with Mac, and someone else could create an OS for generic hardware that ran the same exact applications

You're describing what Qt [trolltech.com] has done for years. Though I suppose ~$3300 is a bit much to pay for your typical Mac shareware developer.

Re:

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Re:

[IANAAC]

Also I like Mac OS X, and I want to run it on my Thinkpad.

You can, albeit slow and illegal. Use Maxxuss' tiger image (found all over the place) and vmware.

Like I said, it's slow, but it works.

Re:

[adrianmonk]

I think Apple should get it over with and release Mac OS X under the GPL. Not because this is in their best interests, but merely because it would be the ultimate way to thoroughly annoy their most obnoxious supporters.

Nah, they should go one step further: they should release the source under a license that is sorta similar to, but subtly incompatible with the GPL. Why? Because that would be the ultimate way to thoroughly annoy both their most obnoxious supporters and the most obnoxious GPL supporter

Re:Why does this idiot myth continue?

[Pfhreak]

Yeah, because it sure hurt Microsoft so release an operating system for the PC, and not come out with their own hardware [sarcasm].

That'd be because Microsoft sells their operating system to every hardware vendor who wants to save a buck by not developing their own OS in-house. MS-DOS didn't have a heavily entrenched incumbent OS to compete against, whereas Mac OS X would have to wage the uphill battle against Windows to become a profitable generic-PC OS, meanwhile Apple's hardware sales would suffer.

Very, very, very VERY few people buy Apple primarily because they like the hardware. People buy Apple because they like the software.

Very true. However, just because the software and OS are what are driving Apple's sales, that doesn't mean that that's where they make their money. They make the bulk of their profits on hardware sales, the OS and software are what motivates people to buy said hardware.

When it comes to computers, APPLE IS A SOFTWARE COMPANY. They are NOT a hardware company!

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

Within a year, Apple could potentially be the world dominant software supplier if they would just get a clue.

They wouldn't have a snowball's chance in hell of becoming the dominant software supplier in a million years by supporting Mac OS X on non-Apple hardware. They'd end up going through the same thing they went through 10—15 years ago, when they experimented with Mac clones: all the other companies (who wouldn't have to make up the cost of software R&D and support) would easily undercut the price of Apple's hardware, canniballizing their sales. Since hardware sales are Apple's bread-and-butter, they'd end up hemorrhaging money, and the only way to make up that with licensing fees would be to make those fees prohibitively expensive, making other hardware vendors reluctant to add Mac OS X to their offerings.

Would it be harder to support a lot of different hardware? Of course! So what? They need to stop being cowards and take the plunge.

They're not being cowards, they're being smart. Apple's business model is completely, fundamentally different from Microsoft's. To have a chance at being profitable off OS and software sales, Apple would have to completely change their fundamental business model, only to face an uphill battle against the ultra-entrenched Windows OS.

Re:

[IANAAC]

Would it be harder to support a lot of different hardware? Of course! So what? They need to stop being cowards and take the plunge.

I think it would be more than difficult. While certainly not the case with some hardware manufacturers, I'm willing to bet that many other manufacturers have signed agreements with Microsoft, giving an amount of exculsivity to them.

No proof, of course, but it would seem logical.

Re:

[Reality Master 101]

Apple enjoys something like 30% margins on hardware sales.

Apple (and Microsoft) enjoy something like 98% margins on software sales.

Why in the world would they be crazy enough to cannibalize their own hardware sales so people can buy a $300 PC and run Mac OS on it instead?

Have you seen how much money Microsoft makes on software?

Have you any idea what it would require to write unix kernel extensions to make the 30,000,000 pieces of hardware out there to work properly with the mac os from scratch?

Re:

[spaceyhackerlady]

It's not that people buy Macs because they think the graphics cards are great or the processors are the best. Though for a time some did.

Apple products are extremely stylish and trendy. The brushed metal look is in along with everything turning white, something I have heard described as the iPod effect.

People also buy apple because of the simplicity of their hardware. I'm very fond of the little things they do like the magnetic power cable and a power supply with a place to wind up the cord...

I did

Re:

[The Spie]

That won't happen. It would require the agreement of five people: Paul McCartney, Ringo Starr, Olivia Harrison, Yoko Ono, and Neil Aspinall. Given the fact that Paul and Yoko are control freaks when it comes to Beatles exploitation, they'd never allow a purchase.