[cosmichobo]

G'day,

No, no... I'm not advocating piracy...

So, we are days away from the latest version of OS X being released... and it will happily run on my eMac (though more RAM would be nice first I imagine).

But should I pay $150 for it... when I would shortly (probably within 12 months) be looking at upgrading to a new Mac...?

And more to the point... How do people feel about that whole aspect... When you buy a PC (tell me if I'm wrong - I haven't done it yet), you generally buy Windows seperately? (Or at least, you decide which version you want, at what price... etc)? Whereas, with Mac, it's just bundled automatically, and included in the overall cost - not "free" really, but feels that way.

Would you prefer the option to buy a Mac without Mac OS?

If I were indeed to buy 10.5 now, why shouldn't I be allowed to buy an OS-less Mac at a cheaper rate, seems I'd already have the software?

Does Apple already take this on board, and offer discounts on buying Macs when you buy the stand-alone OS? (I know when I bought the eMac, I received vouchers to purchase discounted OS upgrades).

Discuss

[Brains]

"People who are really serious about software should make their own hardware. " -- Alan Kay, father of the GUI.

"The Macintosh is not a computer, it is a software program, a concept, that just happens to require its own hardware to run." -- Jerry Pournelle, BYTE Magazine, 1984.

Mac is not just the OS, or the hardware, but a synthesis of hardware and software to do things in ways no other combination can.

If I wanted a computer without MacOS, I'd buy a Dell or build one from generic components. But I want "Mac", so that means I need MacOS, so that means I need Apple hardware to run it.

End of discussion


Brains

[tempestas]

Technically each copy of the OS is only legit for a single machine (used to be CPU before the dual CPU's) So therefore if you buy now then you still need to buy an OS for your new machine.

However as we know, historically the new install discs that come with the new hardware may well allow you to install the newer OS on your older hardware. For compatibility reasons naturally.

There is also the family license pack which meets the need for those with multiple machines.

I can understand however someone feeling that it was not in their interest to buy the latest OS for a 3 year old machine in the 1Ghz or below territory that you can't technically install a Gb of RAM on.

[lavo]

Slightly incorrect on the PC thing. Until very recently, MS had tight agreements with most PC manufacturers that every PC had to have a Windows license. Sure, you can buy a White Box, but when comparing with Apple you need to have a level playing field. So you are paying for Windows in the same way you pay for OS X.

(Dell and IBM have recently offered Linux)

[cosmichobo]

Originally Posted by tempestas

Technically each copy of the OS is only legit for a single machine

Ah... yes sir but honest, when I then sold my eMac, I restored it to its orignal discs of OS 10.3, you see, and now...

[on a side note, we need more emoties]

[morn]

What would the point be of selling a computer without an OS. That's like selling a car without an engine.

[bartron]

Originally Posted by morn

What would the point be of selling a computer without an OS. That's like selling a car without an engine.

Because you bought a boxed copy of leopard to run now and when you buy a new Mac you want to restore your old one to 10.3 and transfer the 10.5 license to your new mac.

correct me if I'm wrong.

It's a good theory but I think the cost of the OS is subsidised by the hardware sale. I doubt you'd save moere than $10 if you could buy an os-less Mac.

[cosmichobo]

Originally Posted by bartron

correct me if I'm wrong.

You're not.

Originally Posted by bartron

It's a good theory but I think the cost of the OS is subsidised by the hardware sale. I doubt you'd save moere than $10 if you could buy an os-less Mac.

I guess that's what I'd like to know... Mac devotees (of which I do count myself one) often put forward Mac's OS (and included apps) as a major selling point... And indeed - it IS. Apple puts a lot of time and effort into their software... and by all accounts (for non 'pro' apps) sells them cheap... But the only reason you buy Apple software, is if you have a Mac...

So is the hardware price inflated to cover the software?

[iPirate]

IMHO, I always thought that Apple was first and foremost a Hardware company, and made sure it had great software to sell it with, if it couldn't compete in other ways. The reason Apple doesn't license OS X onto other hardware is to get people to buy Apple produced hardware.

If Apple were to license OS X to other PC hardware configurations, then firstly it would be put on a shift to Software-based as opposed to Hardware-based, and secondly, it would result in a mass of drivers needed for OS X, an ability to run equally well on ever so many different configurations (rather than, say, 10 configs) and people might start blaming the OS for hardware failure by their cheapest-possible PCs trying to run OS X.

Therefore, the Mac OS would be not only partially subsidised by the hardware, but also subliminally, the hardware's greatest marketing tool.

Originally Posted by Brains

But I want "Mac", so that means I need MacOS, so that means I need Apple hardware to run it.

Brains

Macs are made from generic hardware too.

THey have a mac ROM and mac-designed architecture, if that's what you mean. For me, it's the architecture that's the advantage. Yes, it is designed to work in harmony with, and complement, the software. However the parts themselves are generic (e.g. RAM, HDDs, Optical drives, PSUs, graphics cards, LAN ports, even processors these days aren't specific motorola jobs). Sure, some coponentry is commissioned especially for apple computers (e.g. logic boards), but they're just a box of generic parts. Apples use FOXCONN, so do PCs. etc etc.

[doofus]

If I ran Apple I would look at it like this:
I sell computers with OSX installed
I factor a price of say $50 to cover software development into each computer unit I manufacture
Anyone who wants to pay $158 to buy an upgrade covers my software development profit.
Status Quo remains