What about the clones?
I had to buy a new portable Mac recently after breaking my Pismo, and it made me wonder about tthis question. The fact, sad as it may be, is that you have very limited choice when buying Mac OS X capable hardware. (in my case, an affordable, though very white and low-end iceBook, or an expensive and notoriously unsturdy high-end TiBook). Nice as Apple hardware may be, I kind of thought this lack of options was a bummer. On the other side of the pond, you have these sixteen competitors competing each other right into your living room with '''''good''''' products, but us Apple-minded people, thinking different and all, all work on the same (and in my opinion too expensive) material. I know of the clone-era that Mac had a while ago, and know that this has been closed off rather frank. However, not lingering in the past too much, what do you people think... should cloning be allowed, so as to :
a) make more affordable products
b) offer a wider gamma of hardware options
c) increase market share as a direct consequence of a) and b).
There is, I admit, this saying that an Apple a day keeps the doctor away, but isn't all this an option. Much is due to money issues. I mean by this that a larger market share would mean more income, procuring more means to really make Macs blazing fast, smoking the competition, much like they used to be 10 to 15 years ago. I do think that the eye wants a treat as well, and IMO the G4 towers, for example, are blazingly beautiful, but that beauty has a bitter taste knowing it's a tad to a lot slower along the entire line and yet it tends to cost double.
a) make more affordable products
b) offer a wider gamma of hardware options
c) increase market share as a direct consequence of a) and b).
There is, I admit, this saying that an Apple a day keeps the doctor away, but isn't all this an option. Much is due to money issues. I mean by this that a larger market share would mean more income, procuring more means to really make Macs blazing fast, smoking the competition, much like they used to be 10 to 15 years ago. I do think that the eye wants a treat as well, and IMO the G4 towers, for example, are blazingly beautiful, but that beauty has a bitter taste knowing it's a tad to a lot slower along the entire line and yet it tends to cost double.
Comments
The clones would just canibalize Apple's sales therfore reducing Apple's revenue therefore reducing Apple's R&D budget therefore reducing Apple to a rotting, stinking, mass of gooey stuff.
--Mike
Apple is actually fairly competitive on laptops compared to PC's. Sure if you compare today you'll see a disparity but everyone knows the Powerbook is due for an update.
Strange..I've seen Mac users say the iBook is too expensive at times in where it offered more functionality than it's PC counterparts.
Could the real issue be. Are Mac users are "trained" to assume that EVERY Mac is overpriced? I think so
<strong>Nein, nein, nein!
The clones would just canibalize Apple's sales therfore reducing Apple's revenue therefore reducing Apple's R&D budget therefore reducing Apple to a rotting, stinking, mass of gooey stuff.
--Mike</strong><hr></blockquote>
Steve speaking? IMO Apple would be far better off if they'd leave the HW production all together. (Except iPod and maybe Notebooks). The clones kicked apple's little a** pretty bad, simply because they better and cheaper. Nobody cared about how they looked.
Today we have some more stylish macs which lack a reasonable price/performance ratio. Apple has to split their budget between SW and HW. So if the main reason why people still buy macs is the os then why try to compete with the whole x86 world? Let others compete, sell them the os and sell their HW in the apple stores. Would Apple really lose that much?
End of Line
I don't think so: real Apple aficionados are likely to stick with Apple (as they will keep releasing the ultimate design and high-end macs), and then still, as Apple licenses their hardware patents to someone else, they would get a (big?) piece of the cake of the clone-makers, the point being that these clone-makers are willing to work with a smaller margin than Apple, because they don't have to pay for pirated/free software development.
[quote] Actually if your comparison is of laptops then issues of price are not as drastic as desktops. <hr></blockquote>
I might agree. Still, the iBook
= G3 @ 700 Mhz, that is, without Altivec and only doing some 400 MegaFlops. Now, I might be a sucker who clings to the megahertz myth, but how does 700 MHz compare to 1,8 or even 2 GHz, when Altivec's not there to boost the floating point calculating performance?
= 12 inch screen is usually still higher priced than comparable 14 inchers.
And to continue, part of my point has to do with the fact that on the Apple side of the pond, there is little choice: you have the all-in-one iMac (with the eMac being the updated old CRT imac) or you have the G4 tower. You have the iceBook or the TiBook, but what if, for some reason, you would like something else?
This has been gone over many times. There's no profit (literally!) in bringing back the clones.
Speaking for myself, I'd rather have two really solid choices than 20 dubious ones.
<strong>
. . . IMO Apple would be far better off if they'd leave the HW production all together. (Except iPod and maybe Notebooks). The clones kicked apple's little a** pretty bad, simply because they better and cheaper. . .
</strong><hr></blockquote>
The huge cost of developing an OS must be covered by revenue from sales. The more copies you sell, the less you can charge and still cover cost plus make a profit. Look at the number of MS Windows systems compared with Mac OS systems. Apple would have to charge much more for the OS if they did not have a lot of hardware revenue coming in. Would it sell well at say 600 dollars or more a copy? I think my selling price estimate is conservative. MS ships almost 20 times as many systems, including those installed on new computers. At 20 times the price of Windows XP, nobody would buy OS X. Apple's costs are less than MS, so Apple can make a profit at less than 20 times the XP price.
[ 09-05-2002: Message edited by: snoopy ]</p>
<hr></blockquote>
Totally false. I worked at MacZones during the cloning error and the closes Clone in reliability (Supermac) had DOUBLE the return rate.
Cloners offerd no help for R&D on the OS. They were leaches as Steve Jobs said. You're caught up in consumerism RDF if you believe otherwise.
[quote] I don't think so: real Apple aficionados are likely to stick with Apple (as they will keep releasing the ultimate design and high-end macs), and then still, as Apple licenses their hardware patents to someone else, they would get a (big?) piece of the cake of the clone-makers <hr></blockquote>
Again this is a DREAM. Powercomputing directly advertised against Apples 8600 at the time. Claiming how they were faster and cheaper. Sure Mac user were enticed by the lower prices but clones hurt the market and almost took Apple under. This is FACT.
Please no more Clone threads
Considering Apples small marketshare cloning is just not a feasible option. Deal with it.
<strong>
The huge cost of developing an OS must be covered by revenue from sales. The more copies you sell, the less you can charge and still cover cost plus make a profit. Look at the number of MS Windows systems compared with Mac OS systems. Apple would have to charge much more for the OS if they did not have a lot of hardware revenue coming in. Would it sell well at say 600 dollars or more a copy? I think my selling price estimate is conservative. MS ships almost 20 times as many systems, including those installed on new computers. At 20 times the price of Windows XP, nobody would buy OS X. Apple's costs are less than MS, so Apple can make a profit at less than 20 times the XP price.
[ 09-05-2002: Message edited by: snoopy ]</strong><hr></blockquote>
Your calculation is based on the assumption the apple must make the same revenue as MS -> simply false.
End of Line
<strong>
Again this is a DREAM. Powercomputing directly advertised against Apples 8600 at the time. Claiming how they were faster and cheaper. Sure Mac user were enticed by the lower prices but clones hurt the market and almost took Apple under. This is FACT.
Please no more Clone threads
Considering Apples small marketshare cloning is just not a feasible option. Deal with it.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Of course they were going against apple because apple's offer could not compete. The average customer does not care if the computer is a quality product or not. He looks at the price and features end of story. Again: Apple lost a lot of market share since the end of the clones. The clones were far to short on the scene to ever get the chance to broaden the market share. Why should the clones be able to do something in about a year what SJ wasn't able to do in the last 5 years?
End of Line
In the late eighties-early nineties, when the big Apple vs. IBM antinomy shifted into an Apple vs. MS on IBM/myriad of clones, it seemed the only thing to do to survive: allow cloning. Now again, with even more Intel / AMD - toting boxes the question seems not when is apple going to get a bigger market share, but is when is Apple going to have to close the books (and that is some sad stuff IMHO).
For what it's worth, I heard my professor of hardware architecture / operating systems tell me not six months ago: the trend seems to favor hardware - independent operating systems (and again, I am afraid that he's right).
Another question: can't there be money made of clones (for Apple, I mean?).
<strong>
Of course they were going against apple because apple's offer could not compete. The average customer does not care if the computer is a quality product or not. He looks at the price and features end of story. Again: Apple lost a lot of market share since the end of the clones. The clones were far to short on the scene to ever get the chance to broaden the market share. Why should the clones be able to do something in about a year what SJ wasn't able to do in the last 5 years?
End of Line</strong><hr></blockquote>
Actually, the clones (if we look at all of them) were around from mid '95 til mid '98 - roughly 3 years. And during that time, not a single one of the companies advertised outside the Mac community. Not one made ANY attempt to increase the market share, just went after Apple's current base.
The only way Apple could survive was kill the clones, or become the next Microsoft (and they still could have died even then). What would you have preferred? <img src="graemlins/bugeye.gif" border="0" alt="[Skeptical]" />
Yes, please. No more "send in the clones" threads. It's bad for Apple, silly, and a dead issue......
Actually what I got from his statement was that the market condition dictate that Apple would have to charge more per OS license to offset the smaller marketshare. This is true. The Cloners never had R&D expenditures meaning that of course they were able to offer faster machines and cheaper machines.
[quote] The average customer does not care if the computer is a quality product or not. <hr></blockquote>
Methinks you've grossly underestimated Mac consumers.
Cloning might work if Cloner are willing to pay a Clone License fee and FULL price for All OSX copies on their machine. I'd say if they pay Apple $329 per machine in fees Cloning will work.
[ 09-05-2002: Message edited by: hmurchison ]</p>
<strong>
Your calculation is based on the assumption the apple must make the same revenue as MS -> simply false.
End of Line</strong><hr></blockquote>
Only the ridiculous example at the end did that. Let see, if XP sold for $160 (A wild guess,I have no idea), then to get the same revenue it would take 20 time this, or OS X would have to sell for $3200 and no one would buy it. On the other hand, I believe my guess of $600 is close. Remember, you are proposing that Apple remain a healthy business with its primary revenue from the OS. Apple would need the same profit. Do the math if you are proposing this. Show us projected sales, revenue and profit. Show us your assumptions too. A business can go belly up fast when someone says, "I think this will work; let't do it."
<strong>
Only the ridiculous example at the end did that. Let see, if XP sold for $160 (A wild guess,I have no idea), then to get the same revenue it would take 20 time this, or OS X would have to sell for $3200 and no one would buy it. On the other hand, I believe my guess of $600 is close. Remember, you are proposing that Apple remain a healthy business with its primary revenue from the OS. Apple would need the same profit. Do the math if you are proposing this. Show us projected sales, revenue and profit. Show us your assumptions too. A business can go belly up fast when someone says, "I think this will work; let't do it."</strong><hr></blockquote>
In the beginnig about 2-3 mil copies a year with about $60-$80 profit each copy. Actually the cloners were willing to pay about $150 each copy. The problem wasn't the money, SJ simply didn't want to lose control of the HW.
End of Line
<strong>
Actually, the clones (if we look at all of them) were around from mid '95 til mid '98 - roughly 3 years. And during that time, not a single one of the companies advertised outside the Mac community. Not one made ANY attempt to increase the market share, just went after Apple's current base.
The only way Apple could survive was kill the clones, or become the next Microsoft (and they still could have died even then). What would you have preferred? <img src="graemlins/bugeye.gif" border="0" alt="[Skeptical]" />
Yes, please. No more "send in the clones" threads. It's bad for Apple, silly, and a dead issue......</strong><hr></blockquote>
1.) Power Computing's first clone was introduced in September 1995! Clones were kill summer 1997! Motorola officially ended cloning in September 1997. Others following in respect their stock. After the summer everyone knew "this party was over". Well I said only one year because real competition started mid 1996.
2.) What kind of statement is: "just went for current Apple's current base"???? They were selling Mac clones!!! Should they send someone into all stores and telling the customer: Sorry we can't sell you our computer because you might have bought a original Apple?????? Fact is that killing the clones help for a short time but it's also fact Apple's market share continued to fall constantly. It's really funny that this is always ignored. In reality the clones were slowing the fall of the mac os market share and IMO would have grown it latter.
3.) Here in Austria and Germany (and probably the rest of Europe) almost no private person buys a branded computer. They all buy no name computers. Apple will _never_ have a chance with prices granted!
End of Line
I sometimes wonder what would happen if MS and Apple were to announce a 'great plan' that would replace all Windows version with X86 versions of OS X (Microsoft licensing Mac OS X). Would the world be a happier place?
<strong>
In the beginnig about 2-3 mil copies a year with about $60-$80 profit each copy. Actually the cloners were willing to pay about $150 each copy. The problem wasn't the money, SJ simply didn't want to lose control of the HW.
End of Line</strong><hr></blockquote>
You are not reading these replies carefully, before you dash off a hasty answer. My original reply was to your suggestion that Apple may be better off to get out of the hardware and stick to the OS.
[quote]<strong>
. . . IMO Apple would be far better off if they'd leave the HW production all together.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
To that suggestion, you must show that Apple could survive on this. The burden of proof is on you. I thought about it, and am fairly sure it will not work. If I thought it was a good idea, I would have done enough math to show it is workable. I would not have posted it to see whether others would do the math for me. Take Apple's hardware sales and figure what revenue they would get in license fees from the folks who build the hardware. Will this replace the profit they now make from sale of the Mac? If not, Apple goes under. That is just one crude calculation. If you are proposing this, you should do it in even more detail than that.
[ 09-05-2002: Message edited by: snoopy ]</p>
<strong>
Fact is that killing the clones help for a short time but it's also fact Apple's market share continued to fall constantly.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
And what makes you think that killing the clones is the primary or even only reason for the latter?
[quote]<strong>
3.) Here in Austria and Germany (and probably the rest of Europe) almost no private person buys a branded computer. They all buy no name computers. Apple will _never_ have a chance with prices granted!<hr></blockquote></strong>
Even if clones were available right now, I'm pretty sure you wouldn't be able to get them from your local "Kistenschieber", from Aldi & co. or from MediaMarkt & co., and let's face it, those three are where a large number of people around here do get their PCs from nowadays.
Also, even when clones were still alive, I think you could only buy them as complete systems, not as individual parts to build a DIY system from. Thus, those who like to tinker with their systems and preferably build them from scratch would be just as much out of luck as they are right now.
Bye,
RazzFazz
<strong>
Steve speaking? IMO Apple would be far better off if they'd leave the HW production all together. (Except iPod and maybe Notebooks). The clones kicked apple's little a** pretty bad, simply because they better and cheaper. Nobody cared about how they looked. </strong><hr></blockquote>
i don't agree. while the clones were more faster than the fastest apple macs at the time, they were more prone to problems. everyone says the reason the os works as well as it does on macs is because apple doesn't have to deal with so many random pieces being used in their computers. i agree with that. i owned a clone and set up a couple others for people. most of them had problems. mine was dismal and unstable. also, i couldn't boot off a system disk because i didn't have an "apple" cd-rom drive.
for those that think that apple should just be in the software business, i think you'd change your tune quickly if it happened. i suspect that apple trying to write an os to work on a large variety of machines would make the system as unstable as windows' earlier versions. just anecdotal evidence, but clones were not all they were cracked up to be.
<strong>
Steve speaking? IMO Apple would be far better off if they'd leave the HW production all together. (Except iPod and maybe Notebooks). The clones kicked apple's little a** pretty bad, simply because they better and cheaper. Nobody cared about how they looked.
Today we have some more stylish macs which lack a reasonable price/performance ratio. Apple has to split their budget between SW and HW. So if the main reason why people still buy macs is the os then why try to compete with the whole x86 world? Let others compete, sell them the os and sell their HW in the apple stores. Would Apple really lose that much?
End of Line</strong><hr></blockquote>
If I recall correctly, Apple did not produce the highest end Macs in the clone days, those wer the MP systems from Daystar (?). Also the clone makers like Power Computing were smaller, and got to market faster with the newest chips than Apple was able to do, which again cut into Apple's high end sales, which is where Apple makes their largest profit margin.