Things not always what they seem...is Apple really a software company?

chris cuillachris cuilla
Posted:
in General Discussion edited January 2014
I have actually been thinking about this for a while, and these two links helped to clarify my thinking a bit:



http://www.manageability.org/blog/ar...packaging/view



http://news.com.com/2010-1071-984072.html



Is it possible that Apple is really a software company that LOOKS like a hardware company?



Think this through carefully.



Apple sells a package that includes hardware and software. Why do people buy it? The hardware? Usually not. Its the utility provided by the software (increasingly bundled). The hardware just happens to be the "packaging" or the delivery mechanism.



Heck, I don't even think Apple manufactures anything any more. They design it, yes. They package it and sell it also.



Now, why is this important? Because it may give us some insight into future Apple directions (for example why or why not they would choose to port OS X to Intel)...things such as software they choose to develop ("Apple Office"?) and companies they choose to acquire (Adobe?) (NOTE: All...or most...of the companies Apple has acquired over the past 3-4 years have been software companies.)

Comments

  • Reply 1 of 3
    amorphamorph Posts: 7,112member
    It's true that Apple is more of a software company than they used to be. Their R&D breaks down to 49% hardware, 51% OS and applications - in no small part because they're doing so much work on OS X.



    But the hardware/software distinction misses the point entirely. Apple's whole point is that you can't cleanly separate them. When Steve talks about a "computer" (e.g. "I think I have one more good computer left in me") he's talking about the whole thing (or, to use their term, the "whole widget"), and that's how most people think of them as well.



    Is Apple a hardware company? Yes. Are they a software company? Yes. They don't make all their hardware, you say, but they don't make all their software either. Contracting and subcontracting and buying and borrowing are realities in both fields.



    I would strongly disagree that nobody buys Macs for the hardware. You can't compare the build quality of an iBook to anything in its price range - or heck, twice its price range - except a PowerBook. Do you suppose that the G5 doubled PowerMac sales because everyone who bought one wanted Jaguar?



    That aside, the whole reason that Apple systems and software work as well as they do as consistently as they do is that Apple controls the hardware. One of the great ironies of the hardcore gaming industry is that its consumers love all the handbuilt, cutting-edge hardware and the developers hate it. John Carmack sung the praises of the jellybean iMac as a way to attract game developers! This was obviously not because it was such a hot gaming box, but because the hardware was so absolutely consistent that it was almost a console, so it was easy to write for. The more assumptions software can make about what facilities it has available, the more features the developers can add with confidence, the more of the hardware's capabilities the application can exploit, the fewer lines of code are required, the less testing is required, the higher quality the end result can be.



    The people who want Apple to go all software are financial analysts, not programmers. They have no understanding whatsoever of the issues involved. They just know that intellectual property and software is more liquid than manufacturing plants and physical infrastructure and inventory, and therefor more desirable from a capitalist point of view. But if your goal is to build a kick-ass computer - in the sense that Steve uses the word - you can't beat Apple's current approach.
  • Reply 2 of 3
    chris cuillachris cuilla Posts: 4,825member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by Amorph

    Apple's whole point is that you can't cleanly separate them. When Steve talks about a "computer" (e.g. "I think I have one more good computer left in me") he's talking about the whole thing (or, to use their term, the "whole widget"), and that's how most people think of them as well.



    This I agree with.



    Quote:



    I would strongly disagree that nobody buys Macs for the hardware. You can't compare the build quality of an iBook to anything in its price range - or heck, twice its price range - except a PowerBook. Do you suppose that the G5 doubled PowerMac sales because everyone who bought one wanted Jaguar?





    I really meant that no one buys a Mac only for the hardware.



    Quote:



    That aside, the whole reason that Apple systems and software work as well as they do as consistently as they do is that Apple controls the hardware.





    I understand this.



    Quote:



    The people who want Apple to go all software are financial analysts, not programmers.





    Well...and lots of people on these boards, who are not typical buyers/users, I would guess.



    Quote:

    But if your goal is to build a kick-ass computer - in the sense that Steve uses the word - you can't beat Apple's current approach.



    I agree with this too.
  • Reply 3 of 3
    amorphamorph Posts: 7,112member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by Chris Cuilla

    I really meant that no one buys a Mac only for the hardware.



    Well, it's not like there are that many options, are there?



    There are people who buy them to run Linux...



    Quote:

    Well...and lots of people on these boards, who are not typical buyers/users, I would guess.



    As would I. And I'm pretty sure those people are still a minority. Mac users have been crowing about the superior quality of Apple hardware for decades. It might be faster or it might be slower, but for the most part it's designed and built well, and it lasts.
Sign In or Register to comment.