Apple has finished unveiling its product lineup for 2016, and yet again it appears to have forgotten about the Mac Pro. The high-end desktop will be three years old next month, and although it might look pretty on the outside, it’s way past its best on the inside.
Apple won’t tell us why the Mac Pro isn’t a priority anymore, but its focus is clearly elsewhere. This is a problem for creative professionals who rely on the extra power the machine provides. For some, the iMac just isn’t beefy enough.
Some believe Apple should license macOS to third-party computer makers that are willing to cater to the pros Apple is ignoring. It’s a move Apple would never make, but is it a good idea?
Join us in this week’s Friday Night Fight as we battle it out over whether Apple should let rival PC vendors build macOS machines!
Killian Bell: It’s been almost three years since Apple last refreshed the Mac Pro, so it’s easy to see why fans aren’t happy. It’s the company’s only pro desktop, and for some intensive tasks, the iMac just doesn’t cut it — even if you pay more for the fastest chips and all the RAM Apple can offer.
The Mac Pro clearly isn’t a priority for the Cupertino company anymore, but there are plenty of users out there who rely on it. So, maybe it’s time Apple gave fans an alternative. I think it should either license macOS to other computer makers, or at least give users the option to (legally) install the operating system on a machine they’ve built themselves.
I know licensing macOS seems like a crazy idea, but hear me out. If Apple gave other computer makers the option to use its software, it could allow them to build pro machines that keep consumers happy, while the Mac Pro lives out its final days. It would also result in a lot more macOS users, which means more people using (and paying for) Apple services.
In addition, licensing still allows Apple to have some control. It could ensure that the only machines shipping with macOS from third parties are those that meet pro needs, which would prevent a negative impact on sales of the iMac, Mac mini, and MacBook lineup. It’s a win-win.
Luke Dormehl: From a customer perspective I totally get the appeal of this — in the short-term, at least. Right now, it seems that Apple’s not innovating with the Mac in the way that many would like: be it the mixed reception the new MacBook Pro has received, the lack of a new Mac Pro, the fact that Apple isn’t making a high-end games machine, and so on. The idea that a company could come along and build an ultimate Hackintosh is a neat one.
In theory.
In practice, I don’t think this will ever happen, or should ever happen. If you remember, Apple’s customers were crying out for clone Macs during the 1990s. The working theory that it would get Macs into more homes, make it competitive with Windows PCs, lower the price of entry and more.
In practice, it resulted in sub-par Macs, an even more complicated product lineup (which was already complex at the time) and, amazingly, Apple actually losing money — since the license money it received per Mac sold was less than the money it would have made from its own profit margins. There weren’t more Macs sold, there were just cheaper Macs.
Now, Apple is a very different company in 2016 to 1995, but it just doesn’t seem a strategy Apple would be able to gain anything from. It’s always been a company that, to quote Alan Kay, showed it was serious about software by building its own hardware. Particularly if it’s keen to make technology like the Tool Bar a key part of future operating systems, or even ensure the security of Apple Pay, it needs to be able to ensure total control on all aspects of its manufacturing. It would be one thing if this could be another valuable revenue stream for Apple, but PC sales continue to fall — meaning that this would be Apple compromising its philosophy for little tangible gain.
I just don’t think this would be a good idea. Much as I’d love to see Apple treat its Mac division, and its Mac customers, with a respect that feels like it’s been lacking in recent years.
Killian: I see what you’re saying, but things are a lot different now than they were in the ‘90s. This move wouldn’t be to provide cheaper Macs for the masses; it would be to serve a very specific group of users that Apple isn’t currently serving properly.
So long as the move doesn’t cannibalize sales of other Apple computers, I don’t see what Apple has to lose. It can be picky about which companies it partners up with to ensure that fans get the same level of quality and support they’re used to, and it can put restrictions in place that prevent those companies from competing with other Apple machines.
Not only could this move keep Mac Pro users happy, but it could attract new users to the macOS platform. How many consumers avoid Macs right now because they’re not powerful enough, or because they’re not upgradeable? This is an answer to those problems, and it’s one that requires very little effort from Apple.
Apple is more focused on services now. It doesn’t even charge us for macOS. If serving more pro consumers means a greater number of people are using its platform, and paying for things like iCloud and Apple Music and buying software from the Mac App Store, it’s a lucrative move. Apple has plenty to gain.
PC sales are falling because for the average user, a smartphone or tablet is good enough. If you were only buying PCs to browse the web, manage your email, and play the odd Flash game, you don’t need one anymore. That’s not the case for creative pros and serious gamers who need powerful computers with modern hardware.
It’s certainly an outlandish idea, but I don’t think it’s a bad one. And let’s face it, Apple isn’t exactly the company it once was. Some of the moves it’s making today — like releasing $300 picture books — aren’t typical Apple moves.
Luke: Don’t get me started on that book! If you had been willing to defend it, that could’ve been a good “Friday Night Fights” argument.
I think you’re diagnosing the right problem here, but offering the wrong solution. Again, it would be great to see Apple treat its pro Mac customers like pros, but I don’t know what problem would be solved — rather than exacerbated — by Apple letting other companies produce and sell Macs. It would just mean Apple sharing its future plans with other companies, and risking losing that perfect integration between software and hardware it’s known for.
Do you think Apple lacks the resources to put out new Macs right now? It could, if it wanted to, put out a high-end games Mac as a loss-leader and take to the hit for greater loyalty from a certain customer base. It doesn’t but, for all the reasons I’ve mentioned, this isn’t something that would be solved in the long-term by letting other companies build Macs.
What would Apple gain from this do you think?
Killian: Only Jony Ive can defend that.
Maybe I am offering the wrong solution, but other than maybe changing Apple’s image ever so slightly, I don’t see what harm it would do. It’s certainly better than Apple’s current approach, which is to roll out a new Mac Pro every few years and ignore the complaints from fans when it gets old and its price tag becomes laughable.
Apple doesn’t need to share any plans; it just needs to share its software. And I don’t think having complete control over hardware is absolutely necessary when it comes to desktop computers. They’re not like phones and tablets. I have a Hackintosh I built myself, and I get exactly the same Sierra experience you do on your iMac. Only I can put a faster processor, a better graphics card, and more RAM in my machine any time I want.
I’m not sure it lacks the resources, but I think maybe it’s wasting resources elsewhere. I hate to mention the book again, but how much time and money was put into that that could have been better spent on something else. Did the book really need to be that pretentious? Could it not have been a nice glossy magazine that was given away with the 10th anniversary iPhone?
I don’t think Apple could build a high-end games Mac because its ego wouldn’t allow it now. Most gamers aren’t interested in super-shiny cylindrical cases and beautifully designed motherboards that don’t allow for customization; they want desktops they can pull apart and upgrade. Apple simply won’t make those anymore. They’re not flashy enough.
I’ve already mentioned what Apple could gain from this. More people paying for its services. Happy gamers and creative pros. Support for devices like Oculus Rift and HTC Vive that require powerful hardware for immersive virtual reality experiences.
Luke: Well, let’s turn this over to readers. Do you think Apple should re-embrace the era of “clone Macs”? What would you like to see as far as new Macs go? Leave your comments below. And have a great weekend.
Friday Night Fights is a series of weekly death matches between two no-mercy brawlers who will fight to the death — or at least agree to disagree — about which is better: Apple or Google, iOS or Android?
Killian Bell is a freelance writer based in the U.K. He has an interest in all things tech and also covers Android over at CultofAndroid.com. You can follow him on Twitter via @killianbell.
13 responses to “Should Apple license macOS for third-party Mac Pros? [Friday Night Fights]”
I think Apple could pull this off by partnering with a company to produce a high end “truck” computer. If it is truly for the Pro keeping the price and specs high it won’t cannabalize their consumer line and make pros happy. They just did the same thing with the monitor line, right now those monitors, especially the 5K one don’t really work with anything but a MBP, so do the same with high end computers.
I agree with that. As long as they can keep to decide what machine from third party oem may or may not ship with MacOS they can control the market. On the other hand pro haters will see this as a further proof that Apple has abandoned its pro customers…
Yes. HP would be perfect. They’re already targeting the Mac professional with their Z Series. Do it Apple !
maybe touch I.D. is going to spell the end of all hackintosh builds being able to run mac os?
apple could get away with building an Imac pro and simply drop the mac pro completely…
The MacPro wasn’t shipping until March of 2014, so it’ll be 3 years next YEAR. Now, there are some things that the KabyLake Xeons will have that the current ones apparently don’t. Optane support. It’s VERY possible that Apple’s putting the finishing touches on the TouchBar keyboard to work with desktops, but they might be waiting for the next Gen Xeon’s, Optane SSD, and God only knows what else. But they might not be able to talk specifics until the components they want to use are officially released by their respective companies. It would be STUPID for Apple to mention anything about a new MacPro if they plan on using a processor that Intel hasn’t announced. I think most of the people that bought the MacPro are probably getting ready to replace them, so I’m sure they can wait a little longer.
And maybe Apple has to actually test the product with the components they want to use, but there aren’t any samples shipping. DUH..
It’s been one yr since I finally resigned from my office job and that decision was a life changer for me… I started freelancing on-line, for this company I discovered on-line, for a few hrs daily, and I profit now much more than i did on my last work… Payment i got for last month was for Nine thousand bucks… Awesome thing about this job is that now i have more time to spend with my family… CHILP.IT/8d93f4b
External GPU support on thunderbolt 3 macs would mostly solve this.
If you have ever looked at CPU/GPU utilization while playing games, it is almost always avg 50% usage on CPU with spikes to 100% and 0%. GPU is nearly always 95-100%. Clearly this shows which is the limiting factor: GPU.
Basically having a GTX1070/1080 would let you run nearly any game at mid-high settings. And this is likely a firmware patch away from working on the new macs.
And for CPU, which is burdened heavily by less time dependent tasks like editing a picture/video, a similar device that would be a high core (8-32, with hyperthreading) CPU and 16-64G of ram with maybe some ssd storage could solve this as well.
This lets your mac normally be able to do most things and be really portable. For the other things, you dock it into external storage, GPU and CPU. Basically upgradeable on the fly.
“It’s a move Apple would never make, ..” . Wrong. Apple made that move in the past and lost sales of Macs.
True, but it was a very different time back then. Clones were undercutting Apple’s devices and it turned into the Wild West when Apple was already struggling. Here what I suggest is a partnership the an OEM that is already making Pro machines and having Apple work with them on specs. Apple can limit hardware to make support easier, the OEM gets a new market for the ‘trucks’ they already make, and Pros get a more up to date machine. Waiting for the perfect storm of new components and taking years to update hardware doesn’t seem to be working? I know I moved on and run a Hackintosh for my Apple software, but am migrating to Adobe and Windows and Linux.
Pros I know are bridging the gap with hackintoshes on the way to abandoning OSX and moving to Windows. There’s nothing Pro about forced obsolescence and welded in parts.
I think this would be a great idea look at MICROSOFT that’s how they make their money their OS is in 80% of all the PCs out there, if Apple would do the same open up his OS it would gain a lot of client for their Mac store and iTunes Store maybe they would lose a few sales but gain a lot clients for their store.
Hell yeah they need to do this, if they are not going to keep up with their Mac Pro fan base atleast license it out, its already been proven that you can build a hackintosh and have it work just like owning a legit Mac so when not explore this option, This would really put Windows back to the wall :)
I hope Apple does license macOS to third-party computer makers. I’m turned off by the new MacBook and MacBook Pro’s lack of ports. If they don’t license macOS to other manufacturers, I guarantee my next laptop or desktop with be a Hackintosh.