Apple just need to allow cloning, and control OS X will do. Before you said Steve will never do this, remember that now Apple is in a very different situation than in the past. Apple used to be a hardware-only company, and the cloning of Mac nearly kills Apple. But now Apple has iPod, iTunes Music Store, and a whole range of applications. Lesser machines sold can be make up by more application/OS X sold.
Utter nonsense. Apple may be in a slightly better state in terms of the amount of software they sell. But it's still Hardware that brings in the big money. iPods are selling alot now, but wait till, MP3 music players reach full saturation and sales of the iPod will go down (this happened with cellphones and PCs). MacOS X development is going to slow down and major MacOS X releases will be farther apart meaning less money will be coming in from MacOS X releases.
Apple makes money on computers... it is supplemented by iPods...
You may be able to reverse that sentence a few years from now.
Some people posting here need to be reminded that the only way Apple was only able to make the ITMS and the ipod and the mac works seamlessly together due to the fact they make everything themselves. Cloning would effectively tie their hands.
While Apple makes the most from hardware "right now" computer life cycles are getting longer and longer, and they should be considering other areas they can apply their talents.
Utter nonsense. Apple may be in a slightly better state in terms of the amount of software they sell. But it's still Hardware that brings in the big money. iPods are selling alot now, but wait till, MP3 music players reach full saturation and sales of the iPod will go down (this happened with cellphones and PCs). MacOS X development is going to slow down and major MacOS X releases will be farther apart meaning less money will be coming in from MacOS X releases.
I think you are still stuck in the past. Apple has evolved a lot in the past few years. Mac OS X, the iApps, the power apps, the iPod, etc all bring in money. Yes, cloning will decrease the hardware income, but it will also increase the other income, while add on market shares for Mac OS X. My guess is that Apple will do this once they can finally get their other non-Mac income exceed the Mac sales.
You may be able to reverse that sentence a few years from now.
Some people posting here need to be reminded that the only way Apple was only able to make the ITMS and the ipod and the mac works seamlessly together due to the fact they make everything themselves. Cloning would effectively tie their hands.
While Apple makes the most from hardware "right now" computer life cycles are getting longer and longer, and they should be considering other areas they can apply their talents.
With cloning, Mac OS X, iTMS, iTunes, iPod, are still make by Apple. This actually gives Apple more control in Mac OS X running on clones, then those PC out there.
There is a certain benefit that comes from developing software on a "closed" platform.
We often rightly hear how Apple hardware wouldn't sell all too well without the software. What we ignore is the effect of hardware on software sales and quality.
Yes, the first generation of any wholesale porting of "mac" wares to a software only endeavor -- which means Apple as a Windows developer -- would preserve much, if not all of the macness of their software products. But how long would that continue once Apple has to contend with a platform they don't control, with an OS in which they are now one of many players, some with competing agendas, products, allegiances... ?
I think you'd find that Apple apps would increasingly become windows apps, untill finally they became just another developer. If they did it well, they might be a big developer, but how exciting would they be then?
I guess what I'm saying is that if you set out to make windows software, eventually you end up with Windows software. \
I guess what I'm saying is that if you set out to make windows software, eventually you end up with Windows software. \
This is why Apple should seriously increase it Mac OS X (not Mac) marketshare (even if it means a decrease of it). A Mac OS X machine, even if it is not from Apple, is better for Apple anyway since 1) it increase overall marketshare, 2) licensing fees. Apple can also choose to bundle iLife with their Mac, but NOT for clones, so those people who buys clone can choose to get iLife or not (by folking out $49).
I know a lot of people who likes Unix, who like OS X but did not go to Mac because it is a close platform. They don't need iLife or even a sleek machine, I would say give them a chance to get an ugly box, build them themselves, and save $100 for it, it is their choice.
Define what they mean by a 'closed platform'... most discussions I've had with people claiming this reveal that they are simply grossly misinformed.
Close platform is everything defined by 1 company. Cloning will provides a way to make it not-so-close (since someone else provides the design/hardware), but still allows Apple to integrates everythings.
I too am intrigued by what people mean when they say a platform is closed, which is why I put it in quotes.
Do they mean that it is licensed to 3rd parties? That would be the difference with Windows. But that just means the licensing is closed, not the "platform"
Apart from allowing/relying on 3rd party hardware, Windows is every bit as "closed" as OSX, probably more so. M$ controls the code and releases only what it thinks you should have, Apple too. M$ often creates semi-standards where perfectly acceptable ones already exist -- Apple makes a much better effort to define an open standard here, something that can be accepted as lingua franca, and used independently by multiple parties. Apple is a much better digital citizen than M$. Both have agendas, but only one is diplomatic (though not always).
I do think that controling the platform creates a culture of autonomy within Apple that makes their software solutions possible. If you ask me whether iLife, QT, FCP, DVD-SP would exist without MacOS/OSX, I would have to say probably not.
OK, I'm going to say something crazy here... Apple may be preparing an exit or at the very least departure of focus from the Mac Hardware business???.
Clearly, if Apple cannot reverse the trend in computer sales they've been seeing for the last 8 or 9 years they will have to take some drastic measures. Death by inches is still death in the end.
If worse comes to worse Apple does have some options here. They could get out of the hardware business entirely and open up the floor to all cloners. Competition in the Mac-compatable platform could mean lower hardware prices and better selection. Apple would then focus on the OS, software and profitable consumer devices.
Even though I don't believe Apple would do this, they could licence out a Intel compatable version of X and begin the transition away from the PPC. But this would be an absolutely last resort tactic to save the platform.
The third option is that Apple could come up with something so revolutionary that they can turn it around. But it would have to be a fundamentally better product from OS to hardware. Not an easy thing to do...
Quote:
Originally posted by Paul.No
Apple makes money on computers... it is supplemented by iPods...
You may not be aware of this but most quarters Apple actually *loses* money on selling computers (loss on operations) but makes up for that from interest on investments, iPods, software, etc.
I do think that controling the platform creates a culture of autonomy within Apple that makes their software solutions possible. If you ask me whether iLife, QT, FCP, DVD-SP would exist without MacOS/OSX, I would have to say probably not.
Agreed. That's why I would prefer they could runs on Mac OS X machines, regardless of whether it comes from Apple or not. There are a lot of people, for many reasons, don't like exisitng Mac hardware (price, design, wanted a headless iMac, thinking that Apple is dead or going to die, prefer DIY...), or simply cannot access to one. Their only choice now is to get a Windows machine. But if Apple do just want to control Mac OS X, and let someone else have a chance to design different hardware with different offering (and confirm 100% to Apple requirement/specs), this will be good.
The current Apple already 1) allows cloning of iPod, 2) write software for Windows, so I don't see why not.
If you ask me whether iLife, QT, FCP, DVD-SP would exist without MacOS/OSX, I would have to say probably not.
All those pro apps, and the essence of iLife (iTunes) existed in OS 9 before OS X was released? Some of the features may have turned out differently by now without OS X, but I think they would still have existed.
With cloning, Mac OS X, iTMS, iTunes, iPod, are still make by Apple. This actually gives Apple more control in Mac OS X running on clones, then those PC out there.
I don;t see it that way.
Mac OSX running on clones would be less stable because it has to work with more combinations of different hardware components. This will make a huge hit to development and testing time.
Besides, cloning is out of the question because it would mean Apple would have to split the pie up, which for now is quite small already.
Comments
Originally posted by limtc
Apple just need to allow cloning, and control OS X will do. Before you said Steve will never do this, remember that now Apple is in a very different situation than in the past. Apple used to be a hardware-only company, and the cloning of Mac nearly kills Apple. But now Apple has iPod, iTunes Music Store, and a whole range of applications. Lesser machines sold can be make up by more application/OS X sold.
Utter nonsense. Apple may be in a slightly better state in terms of the amount of software they sell. But it's still Hardware that brings in the big money. iPods are selling alot now, but wait till, MP3 music players reach full saturation and sales of the iPod will go down (this happened with cellphones and PCs). MacOS X development is going to slow down and major MacOS X releases will be farther apart meaning less money will be coming in from MacOS X releases.
Originally posted by Paul
No
Apple makes money on computers... it is supplemented by iPods...
You may be able to reverse that sentence a few years from now.
Some people posting here need to be reminded that the only way Apple was only able to make the ITMS and the ipod and the mac works seamlessly together due to the fact they make everything themselves. Cloning would effectively tie their hands.
While Apple makes the most from hardware "right now" computer life cycles are getting longer and longer, and they should be considering other areas they can apply their talents.
Originally posted by Leonard
Utter nonsense. Apple may be in a slightly better state in terms of the amount of software they sell. But it's still Hardware that brings in the big money. iPods are selling alot now, but wait till, MP3 music players reach full saturation and sales of the iPod will go down (this happened with cellphones and PCs). MacOS X development is going to slow down and major MacOS X releases will be farther apart meaning less money will be coming in from MacOS X releases.
I think you are still stuck in the past. Apple has evolved a lot in the past few years. Mac OS X, the iApps, the power apps, the iPod, etc all bring in money. Yes, cloning will decrease the hardware income, but it will also increase the other income, while add on market shares for Mac OS X. My guess is that Apple will do this once they can finally get their other non-Mac income exceed the Mac sales.
Originally posted by the cool gut
You may be able to reverse that sentence a few years from now.
Some people posting here need to be reminded that the only way Apple was only able to make the ITMS and the ipod and the mac works seamlessly together due to the fact they make everything themselves. Cloning would effectively tie their hands.
While Apple makes the most from hardware "right now" computer life cycles are getting longer and longer, and they should be considering other areas they can apply their talents.
With cloning, Mac OS X, iTMS, iTunes, iPod, are still make by Apple. This actually gives Apple more control in Mac OS X running on clones, then those PC out there.
We often rightly hear how Apple hardware wouldn't sell all too well without the software. What we ignore is the effect of hardware on software sales and quality.
Yes, the first generation of any wholesale porting of "mac" wares to a software only endeavor -- which means Apple as a Windows developer -- would preserve much, if not all of the macness of their software products. But how long would that continue once Apple has to contend with a platform they don't control, with an OS in which they are now one of many players, some with competing agendas, products, allegiances... ?
I think you'd find that Apple apps would increasingly become windows apps, untill finally they became just another developer. If they did it well, they might be a big developer, but how exciting would they be then?
I guess what I'm saying is that if you set out to make windows software, eventually you end up with Windows software.
Originally posted by Matsu
I guess what I'm saying is that if you set out to make windows software, eventually you end up with Windows software.
This is why Apple should seriously increase it Mac OS X (not Mac) marketshare (even if it means a decrease of it). A Mac OS X machine, even if it is not from Apple, is better for Apple anyway since 1) it increase overall marketshare, 2) licensing fees. Apple can also choose to bundle iLife with their Mac, but NOT for clones, so those people who buys clone can choose to get iLife or not (by folking out $49).
I know a lot of people who likes Unix, who like OS X but did not go to Mac because it is a close platform. They don't need iLife or even a sleek machine, I would say give them a chance to get an ugly box, build them themselves, and save $100 for it, it is their choice.
Originally posted by limtc
I know a lot of people who likes Unix, who like OS X but did not go to Mac because it is a close platform.
Define what they mean by a 'closed platform'... most discussions I've had with people claiming this reveal that they are simply grossly misinformed.
Originally posted by Kickaha
Define what they mean by a 'closed platform'... most discussions I've had with people claiming this reveal that they are simply grossly misinformed.
Close platform is everything defined by 1 company. Cloning will provides a way to make it not-so-close (since someone else provides the design/hardware), but still allows Apple to integrates everythings.
Do they mean that it is licensed to 3rd parties? That would be the difference with Windows. But that just means the licensing is closed, not the "platform"
Apart from allowing/relying on 3rd party hardware, Windows is every bit as "closed" as OSX, probably more so. M$ controls the code and releases only what it thinks you should have, Apple too. M$ often creates semi-standards where perfectly acceptable ones already exist -- Apple makes a much better effort to define an open standard here, something that can be accepted as lingua franca, and used independently by multiple parties. Apple is a much better digital citizen than M$. Both have agendas, but only one is diplomatic (though not always).
I do think that controling the platform creates a culture of autonomy within Apple that makes their software solutions possible. If you ask me whether iLife, QT, FCP, DVD-SP would exist without MacOS/OSX, I would have to say probably not.
Originally posted by Sport73:
OK, I'm going to say something crazy here... Apple may be preparing an exit or at the very least departure of focus from the Mac Hardware business???.
Clearly, if Apple cannot reverse the trend in computer sales they've been seeing for the last 8 or 9 years they will have to take some drastic measures. Death by inches is still death in the end.
If worse comes to worse Apple does have some options here. They could get out of the hardware business entirely and open up the floor to all cloners. Competition in the Mac-compatable platform could mean lower hardware prices and better selection. Apple would then focus on the OS, software and profitable consumer devices.
Even though I don't believe Apple would do this, they could licence out a Intel compatable version of X and begin the transition away from the PPC. But this would be an absolutely last resort tactic to save the platform.
The third option is that Apple could come up with something so revolutionary that they can turn it around. But it would have to be a fundamentally better product from OS to hardware. Not an easy thing to do...
Originally posted by Paul.No
Apple makes money on computers... it is supplemented by iPods...
You may not be aware of this but most quarters Apple actually *loses* money on selling computers (loss on operations) but makes up for that from interest on investments, iPods, software, etc.
C.
Originally posted by Matsu
I do think that controling the platform creates a culture of autonomy within Apple that makes their software solutions possible. If you ask me whether iLife, QT, FCP, DVD-SP would exist without MacOS/OSX, I would have to say probably not.
Agreed. That's why I would prefer they could runs on Mac OS X machines, regardless of whether it comes from Apple or not. There are a lot of people, for many reasons, don't like exisitng Mac hardware (price, design, wanted a headless iMac, thinking that Apple is dead or going to die, prefer DIY...), or simply cannot access to one. Their only choice now is to get a Windows machine. But if Apple do just want to control Mac OS X, and let someone else have a chance to design different hardware with different offering (and confirm 100% to Apple requirement/specs), this will be good.
The current Apple already 1) allows cloning of iPod, 2) write software for Windows, so I don't see why not.
Originally posted bu matsu
If you ask me whether iLife, QT, FCP, DVD-SP would exist without MacOS/OSX, I would have to say probably not.
All those pro apps, and the essence of iLife (iTunes) existed in OS 9 before OS X was released? Some of the features may have turned out differently by now without OS X, but I think they would still have existed.
Originally posted by limtc
With cloning, Mac OS X, iTMS, iTunes, iPod, are still make by Apple. This actually gives Apple more control in Mac OS X running on clones, then those PC out there.
I don;t see it that way.
Mac OSX running on clones would be less stable because it has to work with more combinations of different hardware components. This will make a huge hit to development and testing time.
Besides, cloning is out of the question because it would mean Apple would have to split the pie up, which for now is quite small already.