Linux is unlikely to be an alternative to OS X (for most users). The key is in looking at why most users decide to buy an OS X machine. Many people on here pr

Linux is unlikely to be an alternative to OS X (for most users). The key is in looking at why most users decide to buy an OS X machine. Many people on here probably bought one because it provides a decent nix style OS with normal command line interface and the ability to run the things they use for development in much the same way as their Linux deployments. However, that isn't the majority of OS X users. The majority of OS X users probably bought it because it felt more like a consumer electronic device than their Windows computer did. Apple's integration between the hardware and software means that things like trackpad drivers, sleep mode, ambient light sensors, etc. all just work nicely and smoothly. Many PC manufacturers offer features thinking that a feature is just a boolean: it has it or it doesn't have it. For example, a friend of mine has a Sony laptop with a backlit keyboard - just like my MacBook. Except that, in practice, it isn't like my MacBook. Either the light sensor is faulty or it doesn't use one, but it doesn't change the backlight brightness automatically. When you manually change the brightness, sometimes a box on the screen comes up showing you raising and lowering it and sometimes it doesn't. The same can be said for the WiFi helpers that companies seem to install to manage the WiFi: they feel cheap and poorly executed. So, for many users, a MacBook is more like buying a consumer electronic where you feel like it's been manufactured as a cohesive product a little more than the Windows environment where it feels like an OS on top of hardware with the pieces supporting hardware specific functionality created hastily and poorly. If Intel pushes Linux as an alternative, it could help Linux along for those wishing they had a Windows with a nix development environment (which is what I think you mean when you say "alternative to OS X"). It's unlikely to create something that most OS X users would want since mainstream Linux would mean the same hastily made pieces to do hardware specific things. Even look at Android. It's great, but what does everyone complain about: the ways in which manufacturers customize it to make themselves seem different from everyone else. -- In terms of the likelihood that Intel will do this, I think it's highly unlikely. You talk about Apple (potentially) switching to ARM and Intel losing that. However, if Intel pours money into Linux to make it a better OS than it is today, that isn't helping Intel's case. Linux can transition to ARM a lot easier than OS X can. Most Linux software is open-source meaning that even if the original maintainer is gone, someone else can recompile the software. For OS X and Windows, it would be a lot harder for them to transition processor architectures since they would need developers to do that work or provide a translation layer like Apple did moving to Intel. Making Linux the best OS out there would only make it easier for people to leave Intel processors. With OS X and Windows, Intel has a certain amount of lock-in. It's growing smaller, but there's a lot more lock-in than with Linux. Ultimately, Intel has to compete to make a processor that people want.