After reading this thread

http://www.macobserver.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=56731&start=0

I thought it might be provoking to go back to an oft discussed subject : Should Apple license its OS?

Heretofore this idea has been dismissed as too cumbersome for Cupertino to deal with all the problems attached to hardware implementation of Apple software. A valid point if we assume it was rolled out a la MS. But consider this;  IF Apple were to license it OS to OEM’s today under the strictest of implementations it would be a mortal blow to Microsoft. The gloves are off. I will leave others to say why it will not work. I can only think that within five years Apple will be where MS should be. Atop the revolution in all things digital. Learn from MS antipathy, greed and arrogance and become the biggest corporation in the world. The state of the market is in disarray with the total failure of Vista. The welcome openness of Linux is also its Achilles heel.
Of course Apple stock would zoom but is it worth it to SJ and company? AAPL is in an upward trajectory and will continue for at least a couple of years. But there could be a couple of guys in a garage writing a simple OS right now, no?  Never say never especially when it comes to science and technology. Is Apple a hardware company, software company or both? The mind boggles at Apple becoming the preferred platform for the world…. Oh and btw my guess is that they will do it .... so I either think stupid or maybe ‘think different’   

what do you think? the pros and cons?

Well, RoughlyDrafted paints a convincing picture as to why the time to do so might be closer than we think. I still don’t think it happens though, not with Mac sales growing over 30% YoY and, if anything, accelerating. And not while Steve is intent on introducing new hardware features into Macs which will rely on proprietary interfaces such as multi-touch trackpads, perhaps, and other features.

I was ecstatic when Apple, under Spindler and Amelio, decided to open up the Mac-OS for other computer makers, and was miffed when Jobs back-tracked. In retrospect, enabling Mac cloning was done too late and poorly. Now there is no compelling need to open up the Mac platform. Apple is enjoying fat profits from a diverse product line, which are growing at a healthy clip - the Mac line units grew at an average 32% YoY during the last four quarters.

The only reason for Apple to open up the Mac platform would be to increase the potential number of Mac users world wide to therefore ensure it’s survival long term and increase Mac OSX sales. Given the from 10-12 years ago, I think that the Mac clone makers will not increase the appeal of Mac OSX. This situation, depending on the profit margins from CPUs and OSX, may leave the platform in jeopardy since Apple may not have the financial resources to justify development of Mac OSX.

I would only see an opening for Mac clones if they were limited to geographies that Apple can not serve because their products are too pricey, such as Africa and parts of Asia and prepare the ground for an eventual adoption of Apple products.

Too many varieties of hardware to take into account. Compatibility problems would keep Apple Support on endless hold.

Besides, Apple is a hardware/software company. Their genius is the careful intertwining of those two spheres into one whole.

[quote author=“willrob”]Too many varieties of hardware to take into account. Compatibility problems would keep Apple Support on endless hold.

Besides, Apple is a hardware/software company. Their genius is the careful intertwining of those two spheres into one whole.

This is SPOT on!! Anything else would be a mistake. End of conversation.

d

[quote author=“willrob”]Too many varieties of hardware to take into account. Compatibility problems would keep Apple Support on endless hold.

Besides, Apple is a hardware/software company. Their genius is the careful intertwining of those two spheres into one whole.

Exactly! While Longhorn/Vista was in development, I would read some of the comments on the Microsoft Mini blog. The test portion of the development cycle was so difficult and time consuming that it broke the whole development process. It is true that there were/are many problems with Microsoft’s operating systems development code base and tools that make development overly complex and fragile, but the testing burden imposed by having to support so many combinations of hardware was backbreaking. Even attempting to support such diverse hardware would require a huge increase in Apple operating systems development staff, which might well ruin the quality of Apple’s development process.

Licensing Mac OS X is a bad idea that would fail again.

My immediate response would be “no, Apple is a hardware company and it would eat into sales”.

Would it be legally possible for Apple to license the OS under the strictest of terms.  IOW, you can only use these devices, these drivers, etc.,  Severely limit what they would support. 

We may be at a point in price parity where they could enable OEM manufacturing and not have their own Apple branded computers be outrageously expensive in comparison.

The other possibility is to only license the OS for certain platforms - handhelds for instance.

I wonder if licensing could be done if all hardware licensees had to
1. build to strictly enforced hardware standards &
2. refrain from bundling 3rd party applets

If so would Apple catch the same grief for being a monopoly that MS has had even though it isn’t involved in hardware?

[quote author=“JimDE”]I wonder if licensing could be done if all hardware licensees had to
1. build to strictly enforced hardware standards &
2. refrain from bundling 3rd party applets

If so would Apple catch the same grief for being a monopoly that MS has had even though it isn’t involved in hardware?

MS Windows is not a monopoly in the sense that there were alternatives. But MS by bundling a browser, a media player and making it almost impossible to compete in that space exercised monopolistic policies. Netscape was charging 50 bucks for a browser and the well heeled MS included a free browser with each copy of MS Windows. That was monopolistic. If Apple retained tight control over apps to work with OSX which they do for the Mac, some of the problems would be alleviated. If you want to run software on OSX submit it to Apple, they test it at your expense and green light it or not. Maybe I am to Pollyannish for this to work.  I just feel Apple are thinking about this. Wouldn’t the SDK cut out a lot of the hangups?

They shouldn’t license OS X for desktops, but I think they should license Leopard OS X Server, and immediately. I’ll write more about why I feel this way, and feel strongly about it, later - too busy to post much today, unfortunately, but I’m sure many of the more IT-aware here can see the obvious benefits to Apple, to enterprise, and to server OEMs - not to mention the benefit to end purchasers (ie. IT departments working on a tight budget) who won’t have to pay a fortune on per-seat licenses from Microsoft seeing as OS X Server comes with an unlimited client license.

Discuss

I’m more happy to see the licensing of the server OS than the client. One of the big things keeping Windows dominant in the workplace is Exchange server. Unseat that and the dominoes start to fall…

This experiment was tried and failed. The purpose at the time was to increase the dwindling market share that Mac OS was experiencing. The result was for the cannabalizaton of Apple hardware sales and no increase of Mac OS marketshare.  In my opinion, this more than anything else, drove Apple to the brink of bankruptcy. 
Currently I do not see any advantage for Apple pursuing this. The concern would be the exact same as before: would this increase OSXs presence in the marketplace or would Apple’s hardware sales lost.

that’s assuming…

That’s assuming that MacOSX as we know it is around. Not that Apple’s going anywhere, but OS development changes over time. I don’t think we’ll actually see something called OS XI. I’d bet dollars to donuts that the next “big” thing from Apple is yet a whole new OS. Change, albeit hard, is good. It cuts out the riff-raff in the code. Unfortunately, the folks in Redmond hadn’t figured that out.

[quote author=“Play Ultimate”]This experiment was tried and failed.

But I believe it is a question that should be asked every so often. The last time cloning was tried, Apple was in a very bad state and it couldn’t push for really strict terms. The cloners were allowed to build machines that were as fast or faster than the best Apple could produce. That’s why it was a disaster. Now Apple is on the rise and everyone would want to get in on the action. This time Apple could mandate really strict terms to make it a successful proposition.

The real question is what would Apple gain out of cloning. If it mandated that the clones could only be machines akin to the Mac Mini then it might not be a bad idea. An extra revinue stream in an area that Apple only has had a halfhearted interest in while protecting the iMac and Pro lines from low cost producers. That could work.

here is an additional argument for cloning. I suspect that for some people buying from Apple is a difficult step. If they could buy a Mac with Dell or Acer on the front it might make them more willing to jump in.

The alternative is to keep ramping up production and slowly try to engulf the market. Oh and I agree about OS-X Server. Get it out there now.

[quote author=“wheeles”]... One of the big things keeping Windows dominant in the workplace is Exchange server. Unseat that and the dominoes start to fall…

There should have been a wink or something at the end of that… unless you didn’t mean or know of the pun you wrote. http://www-142.ibm.com/software/sw-lotus/domino . Of course Exchange would have to fall, and not Domino.
Anyway,  I agree that the Server OS has much more of a chance of being opened up. It would also start a revolution in IT shops across the globe. Really. That would surely hurt MS in a very short period of time. Imagine no more “per seat” licensing. Right now, small businesses are looking at Apple for that reason. But that would take it to a whole new level.
Also, they could control what hardware is officially supported (Get specific vendors to be OEMs) and lock it down to make sure it will only run with those approved vendors’ hardware.
I don’t support the idea of letting it run free on any old PC (home users). the experience people will get will likely leave a bad taste in their mouths. But the server OS is a completely different market, and one that could draw the right kind of people in to Apple.

no.
For some of the exact reasons you list in the original post.
Yes, that is how MS made its money, but its also the reason Windows is the crappiest, holiest, crashiest piece of software. Tightly tying the OS to certain types/configs of hardware helps keep the Mac OS clean and happy. I refuse to trade the possibility of running the OS on a home built computer with stability across the board.