A lot of people have been bitching about the $30 charge for Apple's OS X public beta. Many are saying that Apple's just being money-grubbing, and is setting itself up for bad PR, and some say the charge is because OS X has to be installed from a CD, and the charge covers short-run manufacturing costs.

I disagree. While I'd agree Apple is adept at shooting itself in the PR foot, I think I see Jobs's marketing sense behind the move, and it may be for the best.

When Steve is at the helm, image is always more important than short-term money grabs. Taking a closer look at what's in store for the next year, it's unlikely that full-page ads, slick quicktime-streamed demos and free posters are going to turn OS X into the linux-killer (wow. Did I just use the phrase 'linux-killer'? Linux has come a long way...). As any Microsoft project manager will tell you, public betas are half about finding bugs, half about generating free buzz, and half about measuring reaction to new functionality directions (anyone nitpicking Microsoft math skills should really be questioning what place functionality asessment has in the beta stage at all).

Anyhow, back to the point: A free Mac OS X beta would be downloaded by Mac die-hards, bored IS techies with a spare G3 box, and a host of relatively unexperienced Mac owners. Exposure is great, but by creating a few modest barriers to entry (such as announcing the release of the Beta overseas in an unstreamed event, not making it available for download, charging $30, and restricting the beta to G3 hardware (and not even all G3 hardware) (although some people have been able to work around that limitation (sometimes in terrifying ways (this is almost certainly a hoax (ahh, parenthetical bliss...)))), Apple is attempting to ensure that those who use OS X Beta are people who want to believe.

What it comes down to is that a for-nominal-charge beta could result in 25,000 advocates of OS X and 2,500 naysayers. An entirely open beta with no barrier to entry except a large FTP download could result in 60,000 advocates and 20,000 dire-hard Unix and NT devotees who will slam the product. Following the principles that bad news travels faster and wider than good, Apple does (and should) prefer a more limited release to a more target demographic.

Along the same lines, Apple's decision to offer OS X as a factory-installed option on new Macs is another sign that they want the OS out there (even as a primary environment) but to a highly mac-positive demographic.

Another interesting note is the recent story on Slashdot asking the readership for its opinion of OS X. One of the largest communities of Unix geeks on the planet, the posts in the forum made it clear that OS X has achieved a remarkable feat already. It's succeeded in breaking the Unix ranks into those people who love Unix because it's better and those who love Unix because it makes them feel superior.

Just imagine a world where a Mac user can feel superior to an NT user because they actually run a better OS, as well as one that's easier to use.