“iPod success paves the way for Mac OS X on X86” | iLounge News


“iPod success paves the way for Mac OS X on X86”

“This is all very interesting, but I believe analysts and others are missing the big picture: iPod success paves the way for Mac OS X on X86. People have argued for years for and against the release of Mac OS X on Intel (and AMD) commodity hardware, but Apple derives such a large portion of its revenue from hardware that doing so could potentially damage the company beyond repair. But, what if Apple replaces that lost Mac hardware revenue with iPod revenue?

Steve Jobs would then be free to drop what amounts to a hydrogen bomb on Microsoft. Mac OS X that runs on “regular” off-the-shelf x86 hardware. Or partner with a Sony, for example - to insure quality. Years before “Longhorn” even comes close to shipping. Moo.”

« The iPod mini is a hot seller

It’s true - there are iPod Zombies in NY »

Related Stories



What is this commotion?

Everyone knows LINUX is the most stable OS around. Pair LINUX with some good hardware from Toshiba or IBM and you have yourself a rock-solid machine that leaves Macs and Windows PCs in the dust.

Posted by LINUX! on March 4, 2004 at 6:26 PM (CST)


Anyone that beleives that, is an idiot. Not even true linux people beleive that. But sure, if you’ve got an extra day a week to mess around with your computer to make it work the other 6 days a week, yea, go for it.

Posted by Caleb on March 4, 2004 at 6:41 PM (CST)


hey mac hardware, before you start ‘suspecting’ crap all over the place, why don’t you go back and read my post. I’m not fighting about who invented what. I realize the technologies present in computers today were invented by a wide range of companies. My point with the ‘barren landscape’ comment is that PC’s have become the bargain bin of manufacturing. When companies like eMachines and Wal Mart (yes, they’ve got em coming) can whip out PC’s for $400… there’s something wrong there. Especially since I had to deal with selling computers like eMachines for 3 years and putting up with the crap that came along with them.

My statement was more intended along the lines of the fact that Apple manages the entire package that you get. They actual utilize something called Quality Control which yields a higher percentage of machines that are actually made right and work.

Posted by bedoughty on March 4, 2004 at 7:03 PM (CST)


Walmart PCs start at $200.

Your “$400” seems a little outdated. But then, that’s the wonderful world of PCs for you - this quarter’s high-end kit is next quarter’s Walmart PC.

And if Apple QC is so “perfect”, why do they seem to specialize in machines with exploding power supplies and powerbooks that burn your lap?

Apple is far from being the worst hardware manufacturer, but their quality performance is equivalent to other top tier integrators such as Toshiba and IBM. In the end, they are a boutique hardware manufacturer with an proprietary OS that promotes lock-in and decreases churn.

You want to look at high-performance boutique hardware manufacturers in the PC world, try AlienWare. Less QA, but amazingly well integrated cutting edge technologies.

Posted by walmart on March 4, 2004 at 7:22 PM (CST)


I don’t think making OSX available for PC hardware is a good idea either. I have a PC and just about the only reason I would not give it up for a G5 next time I rebuit is games. How sad is that. I know there a lot of good games ported over (id software and others), but the support is still not good enough to just leave my PEECEE out. So its Mac laptops and PC towers until that changes.

Plus… I kinda like that I built my PC from scratch!

Posted by KM on March 4, 2004 at 7:34 PM (CST)


Ok the only reason this article was written and all articles like this that try to analyze Apple and predict its future is to get more hits on their site.

This is simply the tabloids of the internet.

Posted by kainjow on March 4, 2004 at 7:40 PM (CST)



Well said Kainjow. ;-P Apple will never let their OS off their hardware.

Posted by KM on March 4, 2004 at 7:43 PM (CST)


powerpc users deserve not emulated windows!

Posted by Tear on March 4, 2004 at 8:53 PM (CST)


NEVER gonna happen :)

Posted by Sean on March 4, 2004 at 9:28 PM (CST)


I’d go to OSX in one second on my x86 system if it ran every program that I have now. I doubt that will ever happen, but its a good idea though.

Finally Apple can move away from charging stupidly large amounts of money for hardware, and instead let people buy cheaper hardware and they can just deal with software. Aaaah.

Posted by Adam on March 5, 2004 at 12:06 AM (CST)


I work as a software developer for the NHS in Britain and have no intention whatsoever of changing to a Mac OS. Even if it were released for x86 I wouldn’t want it. If I was forced to use it as a part of my job then of course I will, but I wouldn’t use it for home use. In my eyes there is no reason to, Windows does everything I could want and more, I barely scratch the surface of the OS.
In recent times I can’t remember a time when Windows caused problems and crashed, Xp Pro is very stable (much more than other OS’s).

I understand from my time at university where multimedia lecturers used Mac’s that they are extremely useful for creative multimedia but since my life has non-of this why would I want to change?
Why would I want to buy new software, new equipment etc? There’s no reason to.
I buy expensive high-end equipment for a reason, quality. However I would have no problem buying a lower cost machine (such as the walmarts quoted) but I would understand that “I get what I pay for” and use it accordingly.

Its a god OS there is no doubting that but then so is Windows, to be able to bring so many devices and protocols under one “banner” is amazing. Its not perfect but then very little every is. One point nearly all serious IT experts continually return to is “Windows is vulnerable simply because of its colossal widespread distribution”.

Posted by Pecker on March 5, 2004 at 5:32 AM (CST)


I should add when I make the comment:
—(much more than other OS’s).

This should have read

—when compared to previous Windows versions.

Posted by Pecker on March 5, 2004 at 5:35 AM (CST)


—One point nearly all serious IT experts continually return to is “Windows is vulnerable simply because of its colossal widespread distribution”—

Ouch. If this was a normal thread you would get flame after flame about that comment. Completely not true.

Posted by kainjow on March 5, 2004 at 7:27 AM (CST)


Soooo…If I put a breif article entitled “iPod for Klingons” on my lame Star Trek fanboy site, will I get a post here?

Recockulous conjecture, I tells ya’.

Posted by angry_black_man on March 5, 2004 at 7:47 AM (CST)


I thin the idea of Apple partnering with a select few companies to boost thier impact in the world is a great idea. Only partner with IBM to build clones that meet Apples quality level.

Why this would be good
1. IBM is respected in the business world so OSX could better penetrate.
2. Governments could finaly buy macs. Most have rules that say they have to get quotes from multiple vendors. this is very difficul to to do when your only choice for OSX hardware is Apple and Apple.

Posted by gabe on March 5, 2004 at 8:24 AM (CST)


apple’s level of quality seems to have dropped a considerable amount of the last few years.

Posted by fresh on March 5, 2004 at 9:09 AM (CST)


Everyone seems to be dwelling on whether Apple hardware is better than x86. This is irrelevant.

Bottom line:
Switching to MacOSX currently requires a double-switch—1.) OS and 2.) hardware.  Since most households already own a PC, that requires them to complete throw away everything that they currently own. OSX on x86 permits users to leverage their existing hardware investment (i.e. initial investment is only several hundred v. several thousand).

The forthcoming PowerPC chips look very promising but the hardware choice should stand independent of the software. Its a lot easier to elect to purchase the hardware if your software is already compatible.

Ultimately, computing is application driven. The smaller the OS platform in numbers, the lower the potential market in revenue, the less attractive it is to develop applications for the OS platform. Thus, the only innovative applications on OSX are developed by Apple (and, yes, those are outstanding).  But, drastically expand the platform size (while making it easy a la NeXT to simultaneously compile for multiple architectures), and application vendors will devote more resources to your platform. More applications means more OS sales means more ancillary Apple software and, yes, Apple hardware sales.

Posted by Tom Adams on March 5, 2004 at 9:58 AM (CST)


“x86 users do not deserve OSX. Period.”

What a snob.  And I’m offended as a PC AND Mac user.

Posted by snob on March 5, 2004 at 1:28 PM (CST)



It has been about 6 months since the Power Mac G5 was introduced, and Apple still cannot seem to produce a decent power supply for its dual processor models. There are several noise problems related to the dual G5’s power supply. (The single CPU models have a different, less powerful power supply that does not seem to have these problems.) The most serious is that noise sometimes leaks into the analog audio outputs. This may be partially caused by other faulty electrical connections and components, but the power supply has been the prime suspect for reasons that will become apparent in a moment. There are also some noise problems caused by faulty or misaligned fans. Finally, there’s the power supply itself which actually makes a range of squeaking, chipring, hissing noises during operation.

Posted by More Apple QA on March 5, 2004 at 1:32 PM (CST)


I sure am reading some dumb s⁢ here. Ok fanboys, sit down. You know nothing. Apple f’ed up years ago by thinking they were going to be the end-all-be-all with all their proprietary s*it. And now look where its got them, jack. They are niche. Not only that, Apple’s stuff is WAY overpriced and totally proprietary to boot. Their hardware is always lagging behind PC hardware too.

You fanboys make me sick. Let’s deal with reality shall we? OSX on x86 wouldn’t be a bad thing at all. Hell, Apple would probably make a hell of a lot more money in the OS space if they did that, but hey - that makes too much f’ing sense. Steve Job isn’t as bright as you think he is. If he was, Apple would have went open systems like IBM did back in the day and we would probably all be using Apple Hardware and OSs software right now - which we aren’t.

The only recent hardware I can actually appreciate from Apple is the iPod. The rest is lacking. Quit sucking Jobs balls. Apple isn’t as great as you guys think it is. Freaking fanboys.

Posted by Dr_Cogent on March 5, 2004 at 2:26 PM (CST)

Page 2 of 4 pages  < 1 2 3 4 > 

If you have a comment, news tip, advertising inquiry, or coverage request, a question about iPods/iPhones/iPad or accessories, or if you sell or market iPod/iPhone/iPad products or services, read iLounge's Comments + Questions policies before posting, and fully identify yourself if you do. We will delete comments containing advertising, astroturfing, trolling, personal attacks, offensive language, or other objectionable content, then ban and/or publicly identify violators.

Commenting is not available in this channel entry.
Sign up for the iLounge Weekly Newsletter


Recent News

Recent Reviews

Recent Articles

Sign up for the iLounge Weekly Newsletter


iLounge is an independent resource for all things iPod, iPhone, iPad, and beyond.
iPod, iPhone, iPad, iTunes, Apple TV, Mac, and the Apple logo are trademarks of Apple Inc.
iLounge is © 2001 - 2014 iLounge, Inc. All Rights Reserved. Terms of Use | Privacy Policy