Until Apple can totally get rid of the Macintosh as a source of revenue, licensing the operating system to any other machine would be ludicrous. Secondly, Mac OS X has not yet proven itself stable enough to network reliably with all third party routers, nor stable enough to support all devices following the Firewire protocols (note the Panther Firewire bug, which persists today), nor as easy to break out of the spinning beachball as it is to break out of a watch cursor in Windows as force quitting is not always available on spinning beachballs. Windows at least never has trouble with that. On the other hand security from malicious hackers is better, and the interface is more consistent, so I still have less reason to worry about Mac OS X there. Tying Mac OS X to specific hardware makes it harder for pirating and hackers. If it was not tied to specific hardware, Apple would have to do a stupid activation like Windows. I prefer Apple's DRM approach.

This is the fist article that has proposed the possibility of Apple starting to license Mac OS X that I haven't immediately thought was misinformed and out of touch. I think the next few years should be interesting. Something I would just mention as a response to gopher. I think Apple is going to be focusing on a lot of those issues in Snow Leopard.

A very interesting article, expressing my thoughts for a while now. It seems to me that people tend to stick to proved patterns and thoughts and since it has been "wrong" for Apple to license their OS, it will never happen, they think. But I have come to think that it all will depend on the circumstances and that Jobs seems to be smart enough to change the strategy in concordance with those. Therefore, one should never say never when it comes to Apple.

As for they being a hardware company, one should remember that Jobs once stressed that what was important to their success was just OS X.

And for OS X being still to unstable, then it is interesting to view their plans for the future version - Snow Leopard. If they do as they have said they will, they will be making it more stable and faster. That considered, Mr. Martellaro?s thoughts are even more interesting.

Apple tightly integrates Mac OS X with Mac Hardware.

Apple will be differentiating its hardware - such as with nVidia chipsets and other custom chips - such that its performance will be greater than competitors.

This will also make it much more difficult to clone a Mac.

If a Clone Company wants to use Mac OS X, they would have to use a hardware platform different from Apple's. But it would then have to make extensive changes to Mac OS X to support the hardware because Apple will be going in a very different proprietary direction in the future.

It would be up to the Clone Company to support Mac OS X, not Apple. Why should Apple use its resources to support clone company's different hardware?

But this would make the consumer experience crappy since it won't be able to buy Mac OS X off the shelf and install it in their clone hardware.

Nor would they be able to download updates from Apple. The updates will have to be modified to be compatible.

What if Apple runs Quicktime through customized audio hardware? Then it won't run on Clone Hardware at all. Should Apple give the sourcecode to Quicktime away? What if that source code gets leaked into the open and it would? What a mess for Apple.

What if the Clone Company advertises on Mac Sites or Magazines, eating into Apple's marketshare? This is what happened years ago. The clones did not expand marketshare.

A crappy experience on a Mac Clone dilutes and destroy's the Mac's image. This is not a sound business practice since image is a large part of the Mac.

I find it interesting that in the Apple v. Psystar suit, both parties are asking to set a trial date for next November; after Snow Leopard comes out.

I wonder if there is a connection.

If Apple were to license OS X, they would lose control of the hardware portion of "the whole widget". Unless Apple's licensees were as fastidious and capable as Apple in designing and integrating their hardware, it seems inevitable that the overall user experience on "non-Macs" would be degraded, along with Apple's hard-one reputation for excellence.

Apple has been a fast-moving company, but would soon be bogged down by the burden of supporting the legacy hardware of other manufacturers. Eventually innovation would slow to a crawl (witness Microsoft Vista).

As a long time Mac user, I wouldn't want to see this come to pass.

Guest: "This is the fist article that has proposed the possibility of Apple starting to license Mac OS X that I haven't immediately thought was misinformed and out of touch."

I second that.

geoduck: "I find it interesting that in the Apple v. Psystar suit [?] I wonder if there is a connection.?"

I wonder if you're a conspiracy theorist. Depositions, discovery, motions, etc. These things take time.

Quote

Guest wrote:
I wonder if you're a conspiracy theorist. Depositions, discovery, motions, etc. These things take time.

Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean they aren't out to get you.

Seriously though, I understand it can take time for all the legal machinations. But Psystar?s cloning started last spring and the trial has been going on for a while already. Now another 12-13 months seems like an awfully long time to 'discover'. The case seems to me to be fairly straight forward. Two companies, one EULA. This isn't Enron here.

I basically agree with your article, but instead of jumping in the water head first, why not go slowly and allow OS X to run inside a virtual machine like VM Ware for example. Allow PC users to see the benefits of using OS X in an environment that had all the proper drivers loaded so there would be no compatibility issues like we can run XP or Vista on our Macs. That would make more sense at first, and it would not effect hardware sales since people would install it on their existing machines and Apple would still get money for the OS as well.

Quote

Anonymous wrote:
If Apple were to license OS X, they would lose control of the hardware portion of "the whole widget". Unless Apple's licensees were as fastidious and capable as Apple in designing and integrating their hardware, it seems inevitable that the overall user experience on "non-Macs" would be degraded, along with Apple's hard-one reputation for excellence.

Apple has been a fast-moving company, but would soon be bogged down by the burden of supporting the legacy hardware of other manufacturers. Eventually innovation would slow to a crawl (witness Microsoft Vista).

As a long time Mac user, I wouldn't want to see this come to pass.

I'm thinking the same thing. Licensing OSX to non-mac platforms would mean losing much of the control that enables Apple to make a "just works" total product.

Basically there are two possible ways Apple could open OS X to being installed on non-Mac hardware. First, there would be general licensing where people could buy OSX off the shelf and install it on any machine. That would involve opening OSX to all kinds of trouble when it comes to supporting the 485 gagillion potential configurations of hardware in an off-the-shelf computer compiled from hundreds of different makers. That is one of the more understandable reasons Windows is so bloated and quirky - trying to anticipate and support anyone's components. I do not think OSX wants to go there.

Second, Apple could license OSX to specific third party hardware companies that meet Apple's requirements. (Thus limiting by license agreement the scope of hardware issues) But that move would simply create competitors for Apple's own line of hardware. Such a move would not necessarily increase the market share of OSX capable computers, it would simply divide the market share of OSX capable computers between multiple makers. Even if the market share was increased, the loss from dividing that share with other makers of OSX capable computers would far overshadow the increase. Not very bright, as Apple found out in the late 90s.

The only way that would work is if Apple suddenly (and heartbreakingly) decided to get out of the computer hardware business and concentrate entirely on their other consumer electronics lines. I suppose it is POSSIBLE Apple could make such a decision. But I don't think it very likely.

Chano:
You raise an interesting point. I often disagree with you.
There are problems though. Copying and piracy will be rife. Apple tends to turn a blind eye with owners of Apple hardware but the door must be closed on all others. How do you do that when I know guys in an MS specialist centre who regularly pass around copies of Vista with cracks, nullifying the whole activation nonsense?Sometimes though, it's good to tolerate piracy as it does build awareness and user share. MS did that for years.
Another issue is that Apple will not be able to guarantee the user experience since, by licensing, even to a single partner, it ceases to be in control of the whole widget. This can lead to all kinds of problems that destroy the plan.
The other alternative? Apple could buy DULL right now for about $16B net of cash assets in the target. That would resolve many compatibility problems and also settle an old score concerning Michael Dell's naively incompetent jibe about Apple..... no, no, forgive the momentary aberration.
It is an interesting suggestion. It would certainly put further weight behind the purchase of PA Semi as a means towards proprietary chips. However, as a shareholder, I would vote for one other feature in the licensed version. I would ask that the licensed version had a permanent pop-up message telling users to end their suffering at the lack of speed and to buy the real thing.

microsoft was highly successful when they offered two operating systems at a time - windows xp home and windows xp professional (and this dates back to win 98 i believe)

when vista was released, there were 6 (7?) different versions of it, and as a result the work on each portion appears to be spread so thin that none of the versions work as they seem to have been intended to

the editorial appears to call for apple to parse its os dev team into (for lack of a better term) Mac OS X and (for example) HP OS X

(i hate to invoke a slippery slope argument, but the similarities to what happened in the last 4 years with microsoft and the arguments in this article are astounding)

currently, os x dev teams cover a maximum of 10(? - figure off the top of my head based on apple store configs) hardware configs

adding a single PC manufacturer where many times parts such as motherboards, ethernet ports, USB controllers/ports, and others are bought on the cheap because the manufacturer has a surplus of that type would add hundreds of configurations that apple would need to support

this in turn leads to more OS bloating with more and more lines of unnecessary code

for the sake of speculation, i can only see one situation where selling nonspecific os x could be viable

Apple OS X for Macintosh - $129

Apple OS X for non-Macintoshes - $249

thats it - you want all the perks, buy a mac

you want the basics of os x on any hardware, pay extra

TRO

I think an OS X Touch/ARM combination represents a much bigger opportunity. Rather than licensing just the software, Apple could sell a complete hw/sw embedded system solution to manufacturers. This way Apple still maintains control of the core system. The Made for iPod certification program and App Store vetting process could serve as models for interested manufacturers. Imagine having OSX-on-a-chipset embedded into various appliances throughout your home or business. How about an Apple OS X Touch empowered thermostat? Or a fridge that communicates with the shopping list app on your iPhone/iPod Touch? Or how about an embedded and integrated system for your car that wirelessly syncs data via bluetooth/wifi through your phone or an available hotspot? I think this would let Apple keep the Mac/iPod/iPhone lines to themselves, while expanding their brand and maintaining control through an Apple embedded hw/sw combination.

If Apple wants to test the waters of a clone space, all they have to do is extend driver support for Darwin, customize a version of KDE or GNOME to suit and release Safari, and the iApps for that environment. It would not be a "genuine" Mac experience, it would cost Apple very little to implement.

What other hardware could OSX be useful? How about thinking out of the box. Why not automation? There is not a single CNC milling machine control, laser cutter, or other machine that is powered by OSX. Try to find a CAD CAM package that outputs "G" or "M" code for a post processor that will generate a toolpath that can make something real, out of metal or some other solid material. All of these machines run on DOS or Windows. The stability of OSX would be a great advantage (yes, these machines crash, just like your desktop, only it can be costly) and some manufacturer might pick it up.
Licensing to manufacturers could expand the Mac ecosystem from the bottom. A designer could go directly from design to build right on their Mac without the need to translate

"it would indeed be lunacy to risk that growth by allowing customers to buy Mac OS X in the box for US$129 and run it on PC hardware instead of forking over perhaps nearly $2,000 for a loaded iMac or MacBook Pro."

That begs the question - why license at all? Allow me a few top-line observations:
1. Apple contracts for production, as do most other box builders.
2. Apple's market share is rising, even with "more expensive" hardware.
People and businesses are buying Macs - which means they see the value
of them.
3. For every Mac sold there is a PC that isn't - which frees up production
capacity someplace. Whether that capacity can be consolidated is another
question.
4. Presently, Apple advertises Macs, not OS X, which means mind-share is for
Macintosh, not necessarily the OS. Licensing the OS does nothing for mind-
share, so Apple would have to establish ties to OS X from Macs. They have
yet to specifically do so.
5. It would be far easier, if Mac market share plateaus, to build a price-
conscious machine rather than license the OS with all the resulting
headaches. Market share would have to plateau purely because of price.

Quote

Guest wrote:
I basically agree with your article, but instead of jumping in the water head first, why not go slowly and allow OS X to run inside a virtual machine like VM Ware for example. Allow PC users to see the benefits of using OS X in an environment that had all the proper drivers loaded so there would be no compatibility issues like we can run XP or Vista on our Macs. That would make more sense at first, and it would not effect hardware sales since people would install it on their existing machines and Apple would still get money for the OS as well.

This would work, if the drivers were there in the first place. Mac OS X still has a lot to be desired in terms of driver support. It may be simpler in many instances compared to Windows, but basic printing from Mail should not vary depending on printer used in print size for instance. WYSIWYG used to be for real. Now it varies by application.

John -
Your analysis is interesting and seems to be a step that Apple should consider. However, Steve Jobs has traveled this road already. NeXT was unique, advanced, horribly unaffordable. First the Hardware was unique and somewhat advanced. Then they expanded Dec Alpha, Intel 486, PA RISC chips and eventually ditched making hardware altogether. NeXT tried to make a business model that was based solely on their software operating system. Thankfully, Apple was willing to purchase them and as a result we have Mac OS X with six different releases. We have iPhone running a version of Mac OS X. iPods and Apple TV also have roots in OS X. For Apple to give up making the Mac computers just doesn't seem like a route which the corporate Apple will follow.

You've written a very well reasoned article, but licensing will never make sense because all those other devices like the iPhone use OS X too.

The original clone era is a perfect example of why it wouldn't work. Apple licensed the logic board designs and even took a cut of sales, but still couldn't compete with the cloners who successfully targeted Apple's best customers and led all the others to believe that Apple products were overpriced. A perfect storm of lowered value perceptions, quality problems with clone hardware, the increasingly band-aid feeling of MacOS 7 and disappointment that MacOS 8 wasn't the promised revolution, but was really just 7.7 with a new number caused millions to defect to Windows.

I still have my SuperMac. Unlike Power Computing machines that were significantly different from Apple Macs, it used a slightly modified PM9500 logic board so it was just as much a real Mac as anything sporting six colors. It was faster, more expandable and less expensive than any remotely similar Apple machine. Inside things looked a little more cluttered, but Apple wasted a lot of time, effort and money trying to hide all the internal cables from people who never open their computer case in the first place. The few who do, power users and technicians, don't care about pretty they want easy access to all the components.

Allowing people to install MacOS X on generic PCs would decimate hardware sales.

Technical users would jump at the opportunity to get double the processor cores, RAM and HD for hundreds less than a "genuine" Mac. Apple would lose some of its best customers, just as they did in the 1990's.

They wouldn't be able to make that up with the general public because those people can't see past the sticker price and because most of them believe Windows comes free with a PC. It's hard to compete with free, just look at all the successful commercial web browsers out there. The person who suggested trying to sell MacOS X for $249 is dreaming, it'd be a tough sell at $99 and that wouldn't cover the cost of supporting clone configurations or the new DRM that would be needed to keep piracy at a reasonable level.

Microsoft doesn't actually make much money from Windows; it's their applications division that turns the big profit every year.

Finally, Steve Jobs went down the licensing road before. Compaq wanted to sell PCs pre-loaded with NeXTStep, but Microsoft was able to kill that with almost no effort or cost on their part.

"Despite the Mac's growth, about 10 percent of the U.S. market now, a time might come when technology developments outpace the growth in Mac market share."

Well, since Apple has lead the technology growth and bleeding edge for computing for the last 8 years, it's hard to chew on that statement.

Taking OSX and dumbing it down for plain-Jane hardware is a ridiculously stupid idea. I think we've seen enough proof that we need to STOP dumbing things down and start expecting more of the users. It's called TECH-nology.

And thirdly, motives. I think Apple, aka SJ, has repeatedly shown its motive and intent...hardware. That is where the money is made. The OS is tied to the hardware for a reason. No, it's not for everybody. Neither is the iPhone. There are SO many choices out there for consumers. Apple provides a limited, niche menu of products that simply aren't for everybody and as a company, they don't want to make something for everybody. Market Share is NOT the driving force for Apple. It's about the consumer experience.

So, call it elitist if you want, but Apple's not going to market aerosol cheese to the Havarti and Brie crowd.

People in the kiosk and Digital Signage business, car entertainment .... lots of potential to bring the strong multimedia abilities and robustness of the OS to these markets where you need easy and fast customizable frameworks. And the potential to connect these systems to the iPhone world.

Licensing it to anything other than Macs would place OSX in the same situation as Microsoft. No control over the hardware, which would mean many more incompatibilities and just be much more of a headache than its worth. OSX works really well because Apple has full control of the whole widget, hardware and software. So Apple can write OSX to specifically address it which is why it works so much better than Windows and always will.

Apple will licence its os out when stockholders decide that will bring them more money. My guess is after couple of years when Apples growth is less than 10%.
And it will be pretty easy to differentiate the products. When 10.7 is released for macs, they release 10.6 or 10.5 for pcs.
I dont believe that pc drivers will bloat the os. They will have to only support couple of chipsets and gpus. Not all that has ever been made. And peripheral makers can make their own drivers, just like now.
Many hackers already have a hobby as macking hackintoshes. Its not so hard...

The people running Apple are not stupid, and I am sure the possibility of licensing OSX has been discussed. However, I think any discussions have been thought of in terms of as being a possible hail mary pass if desperately needed.

Apple's business plan has always been to use software to increase the sales of it's hardware. That is why it has bought programs like Final Cut Pro, Shake, and iLife. Apple has always been more then about just making money. Jobs just recently said it would could release a $500 Mac, but it wouldn't because it would be junk. Apple thinks of itself as being superior in every way then it's competition. A leader, not a follower. Licensing OS might be necessary at some point if Apple dramatically takes a jump backwards, but if Apple ever went that route, it essentially would be relegating itself to being just like everybody else.

Currently, there is no reason for Apple to seriously ponder doing this as long as it's sales continue to grow.

The theoretical speculation exercise, should be based on solving something which is needed. What advantage would Apple get from any licensing deal? This is a solution looking for a problem to solve.... but there isn't one.
The CURRENT Mac OS X is pirated & installed on PC's - see the new Macbook Mini in China! Again, to solve what problem?

iPod was a way to take the idea of MP3 player, in a way which was much easier to use. It recharged while syncing to your computer. It had it's own store built in. Microsoft already had Music stores, Wince, Windows on Phones, yet Apple dominated the entire MP3 market. Why? Are the people buying iPods now somehow hearing it has OS X converting users? Consumers don't care what is IN it, they care what it DOES.
The better question is why did Apple enter a business MS was in for years, and completely decimate every product licensing WinCE by hundreds of manufacturers. Why didn't MS succeed with Walmart, Sony, what were the other 44 stores??? MS spent billions on this stuff....
No one licensing the OS can write better OS software. Licensing to HP wont allow them to create the largest music store on earth. It was the seemless integration of all these things which finally took MP3 players to the mainstream consumer electronics.

Apple started when IBM owned business, and invented a market called consumer PC's. IBM knew, they didn't think anyone would want one, outside a few nerds.... but Apple made it useful....

OS X on the iPhone is the #1 seller in the US! iPod dominates MP3 players, the new App store is the largest ever.... iPhone outsold all Blackberry models!
Apple has grown market share 5 x's faster than PC sales growth for 17 quarters. As long as this continues, why ruin a thriving, growing business? If licensing is for some cheap computer desktop - isn't that called Mac Mini @ $599?

The real beauty of consumer electronics is no one cares what specs or OS it runs. They know what is easy to use, and what crashes. iPods are easier than any MP3 player to use. That same case was the cell phone market, 95% of features were never used vs. Apple 95% used all features.
Apple though can use the same code on iPhone, iPod, Mac OS X - gestures like pinch etc. Glass multitouch trackpad, etc.

Oddly MS is wondering how they can copy the Apple business plan - and make a product seamlessly integrate into all areas....

The premise which is unspoken is that "Market share" is very good to have. Then you try to figure out how not to lose money again.... but Apple has the only part of the PC business which makes money. Dell in the old days sold at a loss, and traded options on it's own stock for profit.... which caused trouble when it stopped going up. Dell has $400 laptops which lose money, hoping you'll buy a DVD drive and then make money. It isn't working....

Lastly, Apple has always had some managers who wanted enterprise. While Steve was away, only his models sustained the company - Laser printers shared in small networks created a newspaper & education. Every new design was for business, while every dollar earned was from consumer sales. As Don Valentine used to lecture weekly to steve & everyone in management weekly. You can either be IBM or SONY. Both wildly successful companies. IBM sends out thousands of reps to court clients for YEARS - finally after upper management agrees, it is presented to the board of directors, and it may be approved. Sony makes something cool, people like it, and go to the check out.
Steve learned that lesson well.... Apple will be the next sony, not sony, but like sony. ( Pixar - the next Disney, not disney but like disney - I know they took over disney animation now...)

Steve was thrown out in 1985, so you never saw him operate. He said he could automate Mac production, and built a complete assembly facility - after he was fired - it was never done before, no one ever tried, it worked perfectly. Laser printers? Steve never even saw a working model before Apple Talk was in the OS & sold to desktop publishers. He always looks at whole solutions.... Schools even bought Laser printers, they could share a big one between hundreds of computers...

Now, we see what a complete solution is like. iPod, iPhone. iTunes store, App store, Macbooks, Video/Audio/mail/chat/ GAMES! Apple has more games on iPod/iPhone than Mac OS X... hmm

Unless this approach fails, why mess with such success? Microsoft is an enterprise, it courted PC makers, after IBM gave them 4 billion & paid $100 for each copy....idiots... IBM sold it's PC business - never made any money anyway. MS owns mass PC's now, and enterprise.... Apple let their enterprise sales guy go, he never did close a deal.... iPods put more OS X copies out than every Mac ever sold....
Apple used to ship 750k mac's every Q. Now 2.5M, + iPods, phones. This is not a MS style business, Apple puts shiny things out, and if people like it, they just buy it. Why bother with enterprise when Apple is a consumer brand.

If anyone wants OSx86.org on a cheap PC - it's documented. Apple could likely sell desktops that cheap, but Mac Mini is it. There's not any profit there, and remember, Apple removed computer from it's name.... not Sony, but LIKE SONY.

MS largely makes OS sales because box assemblers have to pay OS fee for every box ( even linux installed ) which makes up 1/4 the price at $500. MS does own that market, but individual consumers can buy a Mac for themselves... even use it at work with Windows.

I recall Gil Amelio wondering how sales fell so far, what happened. ( Clones could sell faster CPU because 50 @ 5K was most of Mac profits - every clone cost Apple -%500 ) Apple needed 40,000 cpu's to fill channels before announcing. Also Power Computing would clock the CPU & bus speeds ( and add Speed Doubler) where Apple needed to be sure millions of Mac's were likely to last a decade.... ( Oh, and Apple sold 44 models competing with themselves for no apparent reason at the same price! Stupid!)

What problem would licensing Mac OS X solve? Netbooks are very new, even combining all companies sales, it might be too small for Apple to bother with. If it does take off.... and it's sold at a profit, Apple can use what it knows there as well.

This article is just like Gil Amelio.... missing the main focus. Apple is growing too fast to keep up now, canceling PPC support to slim OS and ease dev cycle - iPhone shows the core OS can be put to good use.... It's profits are larger than any PC box maker..... So what advantage is licensing for Apple? Cheaper models we have $999 laptops, $599 desktops - OK maybe add netbooks (but iPhone does as much now, and also is too small for all day use ) Apple has no interest in thermostats - you can't make 25 Billion in cash there, or change peoples lives... no one cares what OS is in a car, machine, what does it do? (most embedded CPU's are 8 bit anyway)

What if any benefit is there to Apple licensing? iPods aren't doing well enough? Instead, why not just have Apple offer Windows and avoid the whole issue? Why create a war with MS for a market Apple doesn't want to be in. Waiting for execs & BOD to approve 10 year, 10 Billion deal after courting for years?? Why not keep shiny cool consumer products which sell immediately, no approval wait, just get one.
iPhone OS X is in a market much larger Arm based cell phones.... but how could Apple do better than they are now? No company ever started cell phones and made it this far with ONE model.

I think the biggest conception to the whole "let's market OSX" is the idea that Apple is in direct competition with Microsoft. That is not the case, though Microsoft certainly does not act that way.

The fact is Apple is a hardware company. Their purpose is to sell computers, and their competition is Dell, Gateway, etc. Apple's market share is in comparison to the total personal computer market. Microsoft Windows' market share is in comparison to the total operating system market. That is a huge difference. They are, in reality, competing in different markets.

Apples biggest selling point for their computers is they have a different OS, thus setting them apart from the "other guys" who are mostly wed to Windows. That is why Apple butts heads with Windows, as it is the primary basis for comparison between Apple brand computers, and Dell, Gateway, HP, or all those other makers. Apple puts OS X out front of their marketing campaign because it's the main selling point.

From that standpoint, it would be business suicide to offer to other hardware makers, or the purchasers of the competitors' hardware, one of the main and most visible items that sets Apple's hardware apart from the others.

The only way it would make sense for Apple to open the market for OSX would be if they decided to get out of the computer business entirely, split the company into two parts, and end up with a software company (or division), and a consumer electronics company (or division).

I do not see that happening.