On 5-Nov-2011, at 18:57, Chris Murphy wrote: >> I think that where Apple is headed is actually open-sourcing OS X under a >> somewhat restrictive license, the only thing I can't figure out is when it >> makes most sense to do this, but I'm reasonably sure that in the next 5 >> years it will happen. > > I don't see how this helps them sell more iOS products, or more Mac OS > products.
Mac OS products are becoming less and less important to Apple. The future is iOS, and the future is now. As iPads and iPhones become even more powerful and capable, the importance of Mac OS X to Apple's bottom line becomes negligible. As soon as an iOS device can be used as a development platform for iOS apps, OS X becomes largely redundant to generating profit for Apple. That said, Apple has a phenomenal product and it doesn't make any sense to just abandon it, especially since there are users who will still want a 'real' computer. The advantages to Apple in making OS X into an open (or open-ish) product are many. Apple has already abandoned OS X as a profit center ($30 for unlimited licenses of Lion for personal use means they aren't interested in making money from it). Opening up OS X means that a lot of Apple employees working on OS X can shift focus to iOS. It will also mean a sharp increase in the number of computers running OS X and it will make Windows systems, especially for embedded systems like cash registers, ATMs, RedBox kiosks, etc, a lot less attractive. I think that a considerable part of Steve Jobs long-term plans for Apple have always included putting a bullet in the brain of Windows, and that this is a goal shared by Apple management. > If Apple is going to decouple Mac OS from Apple hardware, that would be a > significant shift in strategy. It's a shift they started with 10.6 and continued with 10.7. Now I am not saying OS X will be GPLed, but I do expect that it will be 1) Free 2) able to run on non-Apple hardware, and 3) at least largely open. Key technologies may be closed or may cost extra (maybe as part of an enhanced iLife sort of package that adds iLife software, iCloud, maybe DVDPlayer), and developer tools like Xcode and OS X Server may still cost money, but the fact is that it is already trivial to run OS X on non-Apple hardware and that 10.7 is, if anything, easier to get running than any previous versions were, though you do still have to exercise some caution with choosing components. > But if they were going to do that, why maintain a proprietary EFI > implementation instead of fully embracing UEFI and the right to dual boot? I don't know why they've been slow to move to UEFI. Perhaps it means rewriting their EFI boot managers, target disk mode, network boot, etc. Perhaps there is some other reason. > Why not relax the license for Snow Leopard Server to allow VM on non-Apple > hardware? They DID relax the license on Snow Leopard to allow it to be run virtualized under Lion (either Server or client) as I recall. > I just don't see them getting less restrictive than they are. The trend with > iOS is in every possible way more restrictive, closed, iOS is a very different system that OS X in many fundamental ways. It is a new model for computer systems. In many ways it is a vastly superior model, while in many other ways it certainly can feel more restrictive and closed. For the *vast* majority of USERS, the iOS model is simply better in all respects. It's safe, it's easy to use, it's extremely capable, and it's accessible enough a 18 month old can use it (not hyperbole, I've watched an 18mo pick up an iPhone and start watching Cars on it). > and monopolistic than Microsoft ever was, Be careful with that word, it doesn't mean what you think it means. Apple does not have a monopoly (or anything near a monopoly) in any market segment. > I sooner see confluence of Mac OS and iOS as CPUs get faster, and eventually > the end of the desktop computer and OS, as soon as Mac OS 10.9 being the last > of that distinction. iOS is the consumer OS of the future, no question. However, there are many things computers are used for that will never realistically be done on a tablet. While it's nice to be able to do some quick edits of snapshots, who is going to work with a tablet for complex photo editing, video editing, sound editing, or even desktop publishing, programming, etc? iOS is still primarily intended as a consumer device. That doesn't mean it will not be used for creating content as well, but primarily it is a consumption device. Apple will continue to produce desktop hardware as long as they make money on it (and don't be fooled by the percentages, the Mac hardware is still making Apple plenty of money), but it doesn't need OS X to make that profit anymore. There are already plenty of people buying Apple hardware and not running OS X on it at all. I believe i read that Apple sold more Macs last QUARTER than the entire sales of all Apple II models over their entire lifetime. Whenever a new model of iMac comes out, or MacBookPro, or mini, I try to build a comparable 'white box' computer. The last machine I did this with was the new $800 mini. The closest I could come up with was a box that was 5x the size, had a slightly better graphics card, cost $40 less, but had no Firewire 800. Apple will be able to make money on its computers without having to restrict OS X, and may be able to make money from other vendors for a 'OS X certified' sticker. _______________________________________________ MacOSX-admin mailing list [email protected] http://www.omnigroup.com/mailman/listinfo/macosx-admin
