APPLE should be selling vmware or at least liscensing Mac OS X to run Macs on PCs. The FACT is that people will want to run Mac os x on clones whether Jobs wants to or not. THIS is what started Bill Gates making Windows OS is that Steve Jobs wouldn't liscense the Mac OS. So will Steve Jobs still refuse to be a success?

Christopher Smith must not be old enough to realize that the Mac OS first debued over a year after the first MS Dos PC from IBM. IBM relented to demand for a desktop system after Apple's Apple II had the first desktop spreadsheet program, Visicalc.

My thought are who will support MacOSX on VMWare or other virtualization products. VMWare? Dell? Certainly not Apple. Hopefully Apple will continue to protect their IP and sell MacOSX as they see fit. I just see the Apple brand image of quality being ruined when someone attempts to run it on an X86 system that it was never intended to run on and they complain that it does not run the same as Apple hardware which would inevitably happen.

While I don't think Apple will license the OS to other hardware vendors, I do think that the 'control of hardware+software lends itself well to virtualization in that a virtual machine in effect offers a similar level of hardware/software control within its virtual world. There are other benefits to this, of course, especially in the services arena and I would not be surprised at all to learn that the Mac OS X Server is being developed to handle multiple instances on a multi-core hardware platform.

As Apple moves into more 'appliance-ware' offerings, embedding the OS in multiple genre's of hardware, it seems likely that their back-end provisioning development will pursue the kinds of virtual machines that will be user manageable but technically sophisticated, along the path Apple tends to travel with their new ideas. They are really not interested in making a 'better geek tool/toy' but in appealing to the non-geek in us with a solution that presents itself as "WOW, why didn't anyone think of this before... it's so understandably simple, yet powerful and elegantly self-explanatory in solving existing problems while immediately opening up possibilities to do things previously inaccessible from a financial and/or skill standpoint."

They don't always succeed in this effort, but they do have a remarkably good batting average in the past 8 years.

Christopher doesn't understand that Apple, exactly the opposite of Microsoft, is a hardware company, NOT a software company.

Apple tried licensing the Mac OS once and it was nearly the complete death of the company. Further, Microsoft didn't get where they are because of the fact they licensed their system; they got where they are because IBM made the mistake of not having that license be exclusive to their products. That allowed MS to license to other vendors as well and turned PC into commodity items.

Apple makes far more profit on the sale of Macs and their other hardware than they do off the sale and support of a single copy of OS X; think about it, it's pretty simple.

PC drones who want to use OS X on their home-built PC's (which by the way after you total it up cost just as much if not more than a comparably specced Mac system), can. Just go DL darwin or FreeBSD, install it, and run it.

All Apple has to do to prevent running Mac OS X on PCs is to add DRM to Mac OS X - such as needing a serial number and activation, and having encrypted verification of the hardware it is running in - such as the unique ID built into any new Intel chipset.

Of course, with Apple's current license, Apple does not need to support those trying to run Mac OS X on alternative computers. For users who try this, they run can run into problems of updating their software and compatibility problems with missing hardware which is Apple specific.

Mr. Smith mentioned Windows not DOS. Not sure if I would say Visicalc was IBM's decision, though it might have had some impact. The first IBM PC was a serious side project with no budget but also no micromanagement. As a result, the team used what they could get, primarily from sources outside IBM.

I think people will get Mac OS X to run on non-Apple gear as they already have. This will have a microscopic effect however. 99.8% of the population will not demand it and will either buy a Mac or stay with Windows.

The more you tell Apple "what to do" they less they are likely to do it. Especially coming from tech fanboys that know nothing about Macs or OS X. As for Job's succes:, how ignorant are you?? Have you heard of Pixar, iPod, Disney?? If Macs ever take off it won't because of VMware or Parallels. I agree with the 99.8% comment above, the only people who will want OS X in a VMware VM are the legitimate customers of Microsoft who fail WGA validation!! Hahahahahaha

Apple is in a different position now. Its revenue is more than 50 % iPod-related, the non-computer part is likely to grow even more with AppleTV, iPhone and others. Apple even dropped the "Computer" part of its name.

Yes, licensing OS X might hurt Apple a bit, but it would not kill them. With the right terms, it might even make the prosper even more.

I think all of the talk from commentors here is based on fear. Fear that their beloved Apple cult is somehow going to be tarnished by hybrid systems running Mac's OS on non-Mac hardware.

I think the money Apple would make on licensing its OS will more than make up for the loss in hardware revenue by virtue of scale. Even if a small fraction of non-Mac users were to adopt the Mac OS, that would still be equivalent to (if not greater than) the number of current Mac OS-on-Mac hardware systems in place now. Apple's marketshare of total computer users is so low now, it has no where to go but up.

Robert, just a point - Apple's market share of total computer users IS ALREADY going up.

And if people read the reviews before buying Vista, Apple's share will continue to rise under their current policy. However to licence the OS would introduce a lot more uncertainty. The current policy is working very well. If it ain't broke don't fix it.

After reading the article plus the comments, a realization occurred.

Apple, while touted religiously by zealots and cultists, is a company that protects it's proprietary interests with many bold words, but very little substance. Unlike Microsoft, Apple does NOT prevent pirating of it's software through encryption and licensing codes. Unlike Microsoft, there isn't a WGA to prevent the technically astute from attempting "non-apple-hardware" installations. Simply put, they say "Don't do it, we don't support it, we shall not allow it", but in practice, they don't enforce it.

They're interests are satisfied by this non-interference policy:

The zealots can be proud of Apple Software and Hardware, and say the hackers are bad people, thus they are vindicated.

The hackers can obtain and install (through perserverence, and a lot of unpaid labor) OSX on the hardware of their choice, and feel vindicated that they've accomplished something worthy of their title. They also get to call the zealots idiots for spending too much on Apple hardware, thus they are vindicated.

And Apple still continues to sell hardware and software to the rest of their market. Apple is unaffected by either the zealots or the hackers, except for the free publicity and advertising they provide.

The Simple Truth is such:

Non-Zealots and Non-Hackers make up most of the Apple market. These people purchase Apple machines, to do photos, music, play with ipods, and write documents, and go online. These people have a purpose in their Apple Computer, and thus fill the Apple coffers simply because the product meets their prospective goals and needs (even if it just means having pretty screens and pretty computers). Apple fills it's coffers with these people.

Zealots/Cultists, spend most of their time 'proving' that their Macs can do what windows/linux does, not the above. Apple and the Apple Software market make little off of the Zealots, because the zealots aren't doing what the market's there for, but the advertising is nice (sometimes), and of course their is no liability for what zealots say.

Hackers, spend most of their time 'proving' that they can do what Apple says they aren't allowed to do. Once proven, (which Apple silently allows), hackers move on to the next new challenge, and again, Apple really loses nothing, but gains a bit of advertising, and of course their is no liability for what hackers do.

It's important for Apple to say they won't license. It's important for Jobs to say it shouldn't be done. It's important for Apple to say they won't support it. And lastly, it's most important that Apple not waste time, labor, and money trying to actually enforce it. Microsoft never learned that last one.

Funny, Apple has always been viewed and reported as the "proprietary" people. Yet they don't actually DO anything to prevent pirates from running their software on non-apple hardware. They also don't prevent you from getting updates for your pirated configuration. They never "check" you to see if you're legal. Microsoft, on the other hand, has always been viewed and reported as the "open" people, running on multiple chipsets, compatible with nearly everything out there. Yet they badger and harass every client at every turn, poking and prodding at every update, every support call, every attempt at releasing a program, to discover your true identity as embezzler of their money and property. Seems like Apple's saving a hell of a lot of money, and avoiding a lot of bad press, by simply letting people be people.

Just remember, when a company like VMWare or Parallels say "this was an unintended consequence" or "this was not the intended purpose", the legal term is "Plausible Deniability". Apple learned how cost effective Plausible Deniability can be, and at least others are catching on WITHOUT having to hide behind the GPL.

serker, are you serious? Apple doesnt actually DO anything to prevent pirates from running their software on non-apple hardware? In the same argument didnt you claim that 'hackers' through perserverence were able to get Apple's OSX to install on non-apple hardware? Why is that? Could it be because Apple has copy protection to check for Apple hardware? wouldn't that be something?

And perhaps microsoft uses WGA to protect its assets because they cannot limit their os to certain hardware because they unlike Apple do not make their own hardware.

Your argument was long but weak and had more holes than swiss cheese. I'm glad you tried to defend Apple while bashing Microsoft. Gee, how original. Next time, please have a valid argument and try not to kill your own argument while trying to make a point.

Yep, I'm serious. I'll answer the questions in your order, windozeuser.

Apple doesn't actually DO anything to prevent pirates from running their software on non-apple hardware. Add the drivers for your hardware, fudge past EFI if you need to (Apple deosn't OWN EFI), and you to can have a fully functioning Mac OS X, with full updates from Apple, with no installation code, for as long as you want to run it. No WGA checks, no disabling of your OS in 3 days. No SPA logging your moves. Nothing but the "stern disapproval" of Apple, and oh--no support.

"hackers" through perserverence were able to get Apple's OSX to install on non-apple hardware? Could it be because Apple has copy protection to check for Apple hardware? Nope. No window pops up saying you're unable to install, just that you don't have the drivers to continue. Download the drivers, and you can continue. Lack of Support for non-Apple hardware is NOT copy protection.

And perhaps microsoft uses WGA to protect its assets because they cannot limit their os to certain hardware because they unlike Apple do not make their own hardware. Sure, you nailed it. Of course, that requires substantial resources, as well as the problem of blacklisting licensed users frequently.

This last one gets me:
I'm glad you tried to defend apple while bashing Microsoft.

Apple does not expend the resources, time, and money that Microsoft expends enforcing their license. Microsoft's enforcement technique involves repeated polling of their product with a heavily expanded role of WGA, which creates false positives. Apple has never done this, even in the presence of "true positives".

Still seems like Apple's saving a hell of a lot of money, and avoiding a lot of bad press, by simply letting people be people.

Now, for the open floor question:

IF the above is "defending Apple" and "bashing Microsoft", what part isn't true?