Besides who is going to buy that outdated piece of crap. A 1GHz G3 with outdated graphics card?
The thing is, there are a lot of people that would never even push the limits of a 1GHZ G3 and an outdated graphics card. And while I agree that PowerMac G5 sales would be cannibalized some, if you're making profits on the smaller box then you're making profits and increasing market share.
There are lots to the Apple experience that could be cut away to make a commoditized product. Warranties could be chopped, service would be on par with other companies and would be cheaper. iLife would be purchased separately for those that want it. .Mac could still work and be another source of revenue.
This isn't a 'stripped down Mac' because it's not a Mac. That's part of the whole point.
The thing is, there are a lot of people that would never even push the limits of a 1GHZ G3 and an outdated graphics card. And while I agree that PowerMac G5 sales would be cannibalized some, if you're making profits on the smaller box then you're making profits and increasing market share.
How many of these would they have to sell in order to make up for one lost PMG5 sale? Apple would need to know that the machine would sell in volumes that utterly dwarfed the iMac at its peak in order to feel comfortable with doing this. Since Apple basically runs at breakeven, any miscalculation would translate directly and immediately into red ink.
Also, this machine would run into the same problem that plagues "thin clients:" The difference in cost between a thin client and a full-featured machine is minimal enough, and the difference in capability significant enough, that only "visionaries" buy thin clients (shortly before they get sacked). No sales + no money per sale = failure.
Quote:
There are lots to the Apple experience that could be cut away to make a commoditized product. Warranties could be chopped, service would be on par with other companies and would be cheaper. iLife would be purchased separately for those that want it. .Mac could still work and be another source of revenue.
If it's no better than the alternatives in any substantive way, and unfamiliar besides, why would anyone buy it? This strategy only makes sense to people who already know and use Apple computers. Anyone else will buy a stripped down Windows machine, because at least they already know how to use that. Or maybe Linux, because their new IT guy likes it and it runs on the hardware they already have.
Why chop the warranty when Apple already gets grief for skimping on warranties? What does Apple save by not loading iLife on the machines? A few pennies per machine?
Quote:
This isn't a 'stripped down Mac' because it's not a Mac. That's part of the whole point.
Then what is it, who'd buy it, and why? The appeal of this machine is completely opaque to me.
This isn't a 'stripped down Mac' because it's not a Mac. That's part of the whole point.
Hmmm... If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, IT'S A DUCK! Let's see the hardware is controlled and made by Apple under a different brand and it runs MacOS natively. Sounds like a Mac or a Mac clone to me!
I imagine that you could resolve the potential problems that arise with 3rd party system variations in much the same way as the HP iPod is basically nothing more than a rebranded Apple iPod. The HP iPod isn't any cheaper though. The benefit to Apple is the distribution channel and overall platform growth -- it helps solidify iTunes, which drives iPod sales, which makes sure M$ doesn't do anything horrible to ruin digital music distribution before it ever gets going.
M$ has already done all it's going to do to ruin desktop computing, well not all, but they're planning it.
The box could benefit from a distribution channel, but it there's nothing in that arrangement that could make it cheaper besides the fact that it's a simplified box that doesn't force you to buy a display you don't want. Apple could do that themselves.
To me the more interesting part of the China/Pakistan/India juggernaut is the effect it has on global prices. That's a 2 billion strong market that can provide technical, production, and software services for 1/10th of the cost possible elsewhere. Once they start buying their own overproduction, they're going to drive prices down even further. How will western price level be maintained in our markets? It might take a while, but enterprising distributors are going to find themselves with a whole lot of leeway to drive prices down again. Same way they're re-adjusting the wage structure of the tech industry... for the same reasons.
The commodity computer is coming, to a far greater extent than it's been commoditized already. Personally, I can't wait for my $300 console mac.
China doesn't want to hand the keys to their technological infrastructure over to American companies. Whether Apple does well in China or not depends largely on whether China decides to let them do well.
The problem with porting OS X over to a clone platform is that much of what makes OS X great is the fact that it runs on a small, consistent, and consistently high-quality set of hardware platforms.
A "stripped down" Mac is a contradiction in terms. Apple's whole pitch is that you buy one machine, pull it out of the box, turn it on, and there's everything you need, and several things you didn't even know you needed. There's no real reason to prefer a "stripped down" Mac to anything else unless you're already an Apple loyalist.
Amorph, I agree with your first point, but I gotta disagree with the second. You are right that China will allow development on their terms and that in a strange way is a good thing for the world market as a whole. Microscheist can't push them around.
However once China has decided on its formats and markets, any and all platforms have the opportunity to convince them on being in the mix. The Mac's unix foundations I would hope is an advantage. Once the basics are set, then the hardware companies can easily follow suit. They can build-to-suit entire factories with little effort. All they need to do is reverse engineer Intel (if they go OSX on Intel) or IBM and Nvidia and Apple white boxes would do just fine....without threatening Apple's North American, Japanese and European sales.
How could this NOT be a good thing!
India is also an opportunity as well and both have the potential markets to decide for themselves what they want. Apple does have the opprotunity to make its case for standards in both countries and even if they don't make lots of money, believe me I've been to India .... just get the ball rolling and they will do everything!
However once China has decided on its formats and markets, any and all platforms have the opportunity to convince them on being in the mix. The Mac's unix foundations I would hope is an advantage. Once the basics are set, then the hardware companies can easily follow suit. They can build-to-suit entire factories with little effort. All they need to do is reverse engineer Intel (if they go OSX on Intel) or IBM and Nvidia and Apple white boxes would do just fine....without threatening Apple's North American, Japanese and European sales.
China's official Linux is UNIX-like, as I pointed out, and OS X is gaining Linux compatibility, as I pointed out. So that's something. But all it will mean is broad compatibility with China's official OS. It won't be a (significant) advantage over that OS.
As for hardware: If Apple can't control it, or if it's anything like the current commodity circus that makes up PC hardware, then it'll be a very bad thing. As I said, either OS X will be very unreliable or Apple will be saddled with a lot of cost, trouble, legacy, and a loss of control over their platform which will cripple their ability to innovate.
Either Apple controls the hardware that OS X runs on, or the Mac advantage shrivels down toward statistical irrelevance, and loses its biggest advantage over promiscuous OS's like Linux and Windows.
Quote:
India is also an opportunity as well and both have the potential markets to decide for themselves what they want. Apple does have the opportunity to make its case for standards in both countries and even if they don't make lots of money, believe me I've been to India .... just get the ball rolling and they will do everything!
The Mac is not a commodity platform. That's a feature.
Either Apple controls the hardware that OS X runs on, or the Mac advantage shrivels down toward statistical irrelevance, and loses its biggest advantage over promiscuous OS's like Linux and Windows.
Well the "Strawberry" is an Apple controlled box, and would probably be made from the same mother boards as old iMacs or something. There's nothing in the box that is all that different than an eMac, only it's slower/older/cheaper. The benefit is that you can cut the cost of the machine and make it less special without destroying the Apple brand. Even if you license it like the HP iPod, the hardware wouldn't be generic like crappy PC White Box computers and thus you wouldn't have to worry about an unstable environment.
To anyone that didn't read the article, they mention a somewhat stripped down version of the OS. They compare it to WinXP Home & WinXP Pro. Basically the same, but with certain features left out. Like with Photoshop Elements, you don't need all of the features. If you do, buy the full fledged product.
The only real question I have is, how much less would a simple screen-less, G3 (G3+ from IBM), two ram slotted, normal loud fan computer cost? Would manufacturing and shipping actually cut $100 off the cost of creating the thing? I mean, if you're only saving $20 versus an eMac ($799 USD) then you probably couldn't actually sell it for $499. But if it you could trim it down by $100-$200, then a $499 retail price is easy.
The Mac may not be a commodity platform, but OpenGL and Airport and pdf's and codices that are supported by QT, etc. ARE commodity standards that can be adopted by China and give Apple at least a level playing field. The same goes for webpage standards and media DRM standards (which sounds kind of laughable for some place like China) to the extent that they do NOT use MS proprietary formats, again give Apple a level playing field to at least be significant in the creative community. And even a portion of the creative community in China and India will be significant.
As for the average consumer in China and India, I saw tons of pc boxes in internet cafe's every 3 blocks in most big cities. Alot of those purchases were given in conjunction with government subsities of type or another. The infrastructures are mostly govt. or quasi-govt. organizations and companies and those can be possible markets for Xservs and the like.
Given the possible new emphasis on business systems and the possible large cost savings by scale, Apple may be in a position to develop some hardware options that fit whatever software infrastructure China develops.
In Bangalore, I saw signs of "welcome and thank you to Bill Gates" for what little he had done for them ... basically show up; hire some folks and talk about future business. Steve Jobs could do just as well, if not better, with a little face time there himself.
Apple should commission a company they are already partnered with (HP) to ship "white-box" clones to emerging markets where Apple has no presence at all. Anywhere else and Apple would eat into its own sales.
Yup.
And nup.
If Apple isn't reaching certain people...it won't eat its own sales.
HP has thousands more distribution channels than Apple.
Amplify that to areas like China and India where Apple has yet to pull out its finger...
People who want a Mac want a cheaper option. Nothing wrong with that.
It doesn't have to have anything to do with Intel, x86, clones...G3, G4s etc.
HP, China, India.
It's about distribution. Areas Apple can't reach. (Or won't...)
It's about economies of scale. Levels of production Apple can't scale at its current size.
The iPod business model could be replicated elsewhere with select companies eg HP.
As for the 'White box'. A great idea. It only has to be an eMac minus the screen. Smart. White. Chic. Sell it in the HP and China style places Apple can't reach and get those economy of scales working.
There is no suggestion that the 'Apple' experience would be compromised in any way...is the HP iPod compromised?
No. So that is a zealot snobbery ala nonsense smack talk thing going on there.
HP could be a good partner to do this with. They aren't frightened to work with Apple. That's a good start.
I'd like to see this 'White box'. I can see where your idea is coming from.
It's not about clones in the x86 or any conventional sense. It's not about shoddy Apple product either. It's a ration book certification to select companies to let Apple (the puppeteer...) control the HP (puppet) to increase Apple's reach. Under the HP/Apple scheme...both win on the iPod. There's no reason a similar thing couldn't be achieved in non-traditional Apple markets with a Chinese partner or Indian PC maker.
Well the "Strawberry" is an Apple controlled box, and would probably be made from the same mother boards as old iMacs or something. There's nothing in the box that is all that different than an eMac, only it's slower/older/cheaper. The benefit is that you can cut the cost of the machine and make it less special without destroying the Apple brand. Even if you license it like the HP iPod, the hardware wouldn't be generic like crappy PC White Box computers and thus you wouldn't have to worry about an unstable environment.
Who wants to sell this? HP decided to delay their intro until they had the latest and greatest iPod, rather than roll out the 3G iPod right before Apple unveiled their 4G. This is the question that killed the clones the first time: The cloners didn't stick to the niches that Apple wasn't targeting (because there were sound reasons why Apple wasn't targeting them!). Instead, they went right for Apple's most profitable bread and butter: The professional market. That's what makes the most business sense.
I also question whether this hypothetical machine wouldn't dilute Apple's brand. It will associate OS X with old, crap hardware. How many kids have we run into that didn't like Macs because their only exposure to them was the lab of undead Performa 5200s at school? It's a completely unfair comparison, but it's made nevertheless.
Quote:
To anyone that didn't read the article, they mention a somewhat stripped down version of the OS.
First, I question the effectiveness of this tactic for Microsoft. If they really think that a gelded Windows is going to do anything to curb piracy of XP Pro then I want some of what they're smoking.
Second, OS X — and the Mac generally — is a value-added platform. What that means is that it sells on all the cool stuff you get out of the box. When you take that away, what do you have? A Linux-ish OS with a pretty skin. But the "official" Chinese OS will be a Linux, so what will differentiate the Apple OS? Why would you get a Strawberry instead of building your own machine or getting a white box, and installing Red Linux or a pirated copy of XP Pro?
Quote:
The only real question I have is, how much less would a simple screen-less, G3 (G3+ from IBM), two ram slotted, normal loud fan computer cost? Would manufacturing and shipping actually cut $100 off the cost of creating the thing? I mean, if you're only saving $20 versus an eMac ($799 USD) then you probably couldn't actually sell it for $499. But if it you could trim it down by $100-$200, then a $499 retail price is easy.
You could probably get it down to $499. But the question is, $499 for what? An evolutionary dead-end that is only differentiated from Red Linux by the fact that it runs on one antique platform instead of whatever you want?
Thin clients are cheaper than "fat" clients, too. Nobody buys them. Price is not everything.
The Mac may not be a commodity platform, but OpenGL and Airport and pdf's and codices that are supported by QT, etc. ARE commodity standards that can be adopted by China and give Apple at least a level playing field.
The IEEE, the OpenGL ARB and the MPEG Consortium would all be shocked and amazed to find out that they publish commodity standards. They'd probably react by producing a license with an associated fee structure, and a whole sheaf of patents owned and controlled by private companies.
Of course, any Chinese company can license this tech and use it. But the Chinese government looms large again: If they don't want our operating systems, why would they want our commercial standards? Those, too, turn over profit and control to non-Chinese companies and nations.
Quote:
The same goes for webpage standards and media DRM standards (which sounds kind of laughable for some place like China) to the extent that they do NOT use MS proprietary formats
Web standards don't generally have any patents associated with them (although MS does have that infuriating patent on style sheets, which they so generously licensed freely... for now), so they are in a different category than industry standards like OpenGL and MPEG. All their standards documents are freely available, and they can be implemented, and those implementations published, at no cost.
Quote:
As for the average consumer in China and India, I saw tons of pc boxes in internet cafe's every 3 blocks in most big cities. Alot of those purchases were given in conjunction with government subsities of type or another. The infrastructures are mostly govt. or quasi-govt. organizations and companies and those can be possible markets for Xservs and the like.
Oh, I don't doubt for a minute that Apple can find opportunities in China and (especially) India. But I think they can do it in exactly the way you intimate here: By selling their current gear (e.g. Xserves) into a new market.
I'm not questioning the burgeoning adoption of computers in China and India. I'm questioning the idea that Apple should enter this market by allowing "white boxes" to be made that run their stuff.
Quote:
In Bangalore, I saw signs of "welcome and thank you to Bill Gates" for what little he had done for them ... basically show up; hire some folks and talk about future business. Steve Jobs could do just as well, if not better, with a little face time there himself.
Absolutely. But this has nothing to do with whether Apple should pursue a white box strategy.
White box or low-end Mac? It sounds like we are discussing a very low-end Mac here. Am I wrong in thinking that a white box is put together from off-the-shelf parts and sold? Not a brand name box from a large company, but usually put together by a small computer store or computer technical support people. Minor point. Just wondering.
The whole idea of enlisting another company to keep the super low-end Mac from taking sales from Power Macs and iMacs is silly. If Apple wants to build such a box themselves it will not hurt any G5 sales. People who buy a G5 are not going to switch to a G3 because it's cheaper. It will take some sales from the eMac, the current low end. But, if Apple prices it high enough it could have the same dollar profit as the eMac. Then, who cares which one the people buy? It would not be a $299 Mac, however.
The G3 idea is actually very cool. If a few key iLife applications require a G4, then this very low-end Mac would not be a cheap digital hub for Mac enthusiasts. Yet a G3 could run OS X, general K-12 software and the usual office applications. For a low-end home Mac it would get email, access the internet and play solitaire.
Who wants to sell this? HP decided to delay their intro until they had the latest and greatest iPod, rather than roll out the 3G iPod right before Apple unveiled their 4G. This is the question that killed the clones the first time: The cloners didn't stick to the niches that Apple wasn't targeting (because there were sound reasons why Apple wasn't targeting them!). Instead, they went right for Apple's most profitable bread and butter: The professional market. That's what makes the most business sense.
Not if it's a subsidiary of Apple. Not if the hardware were designed to do a limited number of things really well, and other things not at all.
The HP iPod is kind of a poor analogy since it's the exact same product at the same price. These computers would be a different product in a different price range. A better analogy would be a $30 portable CD player compared to an iPod. More people purchase $30 portable CD players than purchase iPods, but Apple offer a $30 CD player. So "Strawberry" will.
As for the brand smearing, I'm a bit mixed on it too. But if the "Strawberry" machines were sold on lower expectations (no, this can't play DOOM III, but it can do email and web) then the upsell is possible.
You could probably get it down to $499. But the question is, $499 for what? An evolutionary dead-end that is only differentiated from Red Linux by the fact that it runs on one antique platform instead of whatever you want?
Thin clients are cheaper than "fat" clients, too. Nobody buys them. Price is not everything.
Do you really think OS X is no different than Red [Hat] Linux?
all i know is everytime apple trys some sort of cloning or other spinoff they have been bitten in the ass by it. probably still a bad idea and apple will never do it.
i like the comment made about apple wanting to be a premiere... a bmw.... i think this is very true and is why we wont see this spinoff
The G3 idea is actually very cool. If a few key iLife applications require a G4, then this very low-end Mac would not be a cheap digital hub for Mac enthusiasts. Yet a G3 could run OS X, general K-12 software and the usual office applications. For a low-end home Mac it would get email, access the internet and play solitaire.
Exactly.
And yes, I put "White Box" in quotes because it wouldn't actually be a White Box, it would be analogous to one though. It's just a cheaper Mac (hopefully) separated enough from the Apple brand to keep from being diluted.
Yer right Amorph, I strayed from the White Box discussion, but a couple of things...
1. Apple in the server market and in the creative and broadcasting industries (which can afford it) can do the same dog and pony show that they do here and in Europe. Pros around the world are playing on the same playing field. People in education in India knew about Apple and knew that it "was good for graphics." Get a few Bollywood studios to use FCP and you'll see some amazing market forces kick in that we haven't seen in decades!
2. But the masses of India, really don't care what they use. They aren't sitting around playing Quake or making iMovies. They are web browsing, blogging and emailing and getting news. Since Safari and I believe iChat are relatively slim/elegant code, I could see that they would be an advantage in countries where bandwidth will be the bottle-neck (not processor speed) for many years to come.
3. I don't understand why Amorph and bunge are so concerned with diluting the Apple brand. There are hundreds of millions of people in those countries who could give a mangooses arse about Apple as a brand. There is nothing there to dilute!! .... outside of the professional studios. So why not partner with someone to make a white box. Put the cheapest G4 chips that can run OSX well, like in the TiBook that I'm using now, and find a couple of factories to crank out a 10 million carbon copy versions of them, 'a la kalishnikovs, and you won't need to worry about all the compatibility problems of supporting dozens of gpu's and such. Those markets don't work that way. You partner with a big company that can do the heavy lifting to make all of the compatible boards and gpu's you need. You make them cheap and available at the street level. You make a standardized YugoMac, paint it pretty colors (colors are important in those nations) and make sure any kid on a street corner can fix it, and you've got a HUGE market...a market that will give you plenty of economy of scale.
The point is, if you do it correctly, the branding of Apple will evolve successfully on its own by the people of India and China, not by Cupertino or Redmond.
3. I don't understand why Amorph and bunge are so concerned with diluting the Apple brand.
1) It was a concern the articles took seriously and for the sake of argument I'm willing to take it seriously.
2) I don't think anyone is worried about Apple's brand in India. It's elsewhere that people are worried about. And they're worried because the company has said they want to keep the brand high end, which precludes the ability to sell a low end box.
. . . I don't think anyone is worried about Apple's brand in India. It's elsewhere that people are worried about. And they're worried because the company has said they want to keep the brand high end, which precludes the ability to sell a low end box.
If Apple designed a computer that is very cheap to build, I'd bet that Apple would also give it some class. And class can be free once it is beyond the design phase.
I would be more concerned about the Macintosh brand, if it were a G3 and not able to run some of the iLife applications. In this case, using a different variety of apple might do the trick. Any suggestions?
Comments
Originally posted by Leonard
Besides who is going to buy that outdated piece of crap. A 1GHz G3 with outdated graphics card?
The thing is, there are a lot of people that would never even push the limits of a 1GHZ G3 and an outdated graphics card. And while I agree that PowerMac G5 sales would be cannibalized some, if you're making profits on the smaller box then you're making profits and increasing market share.
There are lots to the Apple experience that could be cut away to make a commoditized product. Warranties could be chopped, service would be on par with other companies and would be cheaper. iLife would be purchased separately for those that want it. .Mac could still work and be another source of revenue.
This isn't a 'stripped down Mac' because it's not a Mac. That's part of the whole point.
Originally posted by bunge
The thing is, there are a lot of people that would never even push the limits of a 1GHZ G3 and an outdated graphics card. And while I agree that PowerMac G5 sales would be cannibalized some, if you're making profits on the smaller box then you're making profits and increasing market share.
How many of these would they have to sell in order to make up for one lost PMG5 sale? Apple would need to know that the machine would sell in volumes that utterly dwarfed the iMac at its peak in order to feel comfortable with doing this. Since Apple basically runs at breakeven, any miscalculation would translate directly and immediately into red ink.
Also, this machine would run into the same problem that plagues "thin clients:" The difference in cost between a thin client and a full-featured machine is minimal enough, and the difference in capability significant enough, that only "visionaries" buy thin clients (shortly before they get sacked). No sales + no money per sale = failure.
There are lots to the Apple experience that could be cut away to make a commoditized product. Warranties could be chopped, service would be on par with other companies and would be cheaper. iLife would be purchased separately for those that want it. .Mac could still work and be another source of revenue.
If it's no better than the alternatives in any substantive way, and unfamiliar besides, why would anyone buy it? This strategy only makes sense to people who already know and use Apple computers. Anyone else will buy a stripped down Windows machine, because at least they already know how to use that. Or maybe Linux, because their new IT guy likes it and it runs on the hardware they already have.
Why chop the warranty when Apple already gets grief for skimping on warranties? What does Apple save by not loading iLife on the machines? A few pennies per machine?
This isn't a 'stripped down Mac' because it's not a Mac. That's part of the whole point.
Then what is it, who'd buy it, and why? The appeal of this machine is completely opaque to me.
Originally posted by bunge
This isn't a 'stripped down Mac' because it's not a Mac. That's part of the whole point.
Hmmm... If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, IT'S A DUCK! Let's see the hardware is controlled and made by Apple under a different brand and it runs MacOS natively. Sounds like a Mac or a Mac clone to me!
M$ has already done all it's going to do to ruin desktop computing, well not all, but they're planning it.
The box could benefit from a distribution channel, but it there's nothing in that arrangement that could make it cheaper besides the fact that it's a simplified box that doesn't force you to buy a display you don't want. Apple could do that themselves.
To me the more interesting part of the China/Pakistan/India juggernaut is the effect it has on global prices. That's a 2 billion strong market that can provide technical, production, and software services for 1/10th of the cost possible elsewhere. Once they start buying their own overproduction, they're going to drive prices down even further. How will western price level be maintained in our markets? It might take a while, but enterprising distributors are going to find themselves with a whole lot of leeway to drive prices down again. Same way they're re-adjusting the wage structure of the tech industry... for the same reasons.
The commodity computer is coming, to a far greater extent than it's been commoditized already. Personally, I can't wait for my $300 console mac.
Originally posted by Amorph
China doesn't want to hand the keys to their technological infrastructure over to American companies. Whether Apple does well in China or not depends largely on whether China decides to let them do well.
The problem with porting OS X over to a clone platform is that much of what makes OS X great is the fact that it runs on a small, consistent, and consistently high-quality set of hardware platforms.
A "stripped down" Mac is a contradiction in terms. Apple's whole pitch is that you buy one machine, pull it out of the box, turn it on, and there's everything you need, and several things you didn't even know you needed. There's no real reason to prefer a "stripped down" Mac to anything else unless you're already an Apple loyalist.
Amorph, I agree with your first point, but I gotta disagree with the second. You are right that China will allow development on their terms and that in a strange way is a good thing for the world market as a whole. Microscheist can't push them around.
However once China has decided on its formats and markets, any and all platforms have the opportunity to convince them on being in the mix. The Mac's unix foundations I would hope is an advantage. Once the basics are set, then the hardware companies can easily follow suit. They can build-to-suit entire factories with little effort. All they need to do is reverse engineer Intel (if they go OSX on Intel) or IBM and Nvidia and Apple white boxes would do just fine....without threatening Apple's North American, Japanese and European sales.
How could this NOT be a good thing!
India is also an opportunity as well and both have the potential markets to decide for themselves what they want. Apple does have the opprotunity to make its case for standards in both countries and even if they don't make lots of money, believe me I've been to India .... just get the ball rolling and they will do everything!
Originally posted by MacGregor
However once China has decided on its formats and markets, any and all platforms have the opportunity to convince them on being in the mix. The Mac's unix foundations I would hope is an advantage. Once the basics are set, then the hardware companies can easily follow suit. They can build-to-suit entire factories with little effort. All they need to do is reverse engineer Intel (if they go OSX on Intel) or IBM and Nvidia and Apple white boxes would do just fine....without threatening Apple's North American, Japanese and European sales.
China's official Linux is UNIX-like, as I pointed out, and OS X is gaining Linux compatibility, as I pointed out. So that's something. But all it will mean is broad compatibility with China's official OS. It won't be a (significant) advantage over that OS.
As for hardware: If Apple can't control it, or if it's anything like the current commodity circus that makes up PC hardware, then it'll be a very bad thing. As I said, either OS X will be very unreliable or Apple will be saddled with a lot of cost, trouble, legacy, and a loss of control over their platform which will cripple their ability to innovate.
Either Apple controls the hardware that OS X runs on, or the Mac advantage shrivels down toward statistical irrelevance, and loses its biggest advantage over promiscuous OS's like Linux and Windows.
India is also an opportunity as well and both have the potential markets to decide for themselves what they want. Apple does have the opportunity to make its case for standards in both countries and even if they don't make lots of money, believe me I've been to India .... just get the ball rolling and they will do everything!
The Mac is not a commodity platform. That's a feature.
Originally posted by Amorph
Either Apple controls the hardware that OS X runs on, or the Mac advantage shrivels down toward statistical irrelevance, and loses its biggest advantage over promiscuous OS's like Linux and Windows.
Well the "Strawberry" is an Apple controlled box, and would probably be made from the same mother boards as old iMacs or something. There's nothing in the box that is all that different than an eMac, only it's slower/older/cheaper. The benefit is that you can cut the cost of the machine and make it less special without destroying the Apple brand. Even if you license it like the HP iPod, the hardware wouldn't be generic like crappy PC White Box computers and thus you wouldn't have to worry about an unstable environment.
To anyone that didn't read the article, they mention a somewhat stripped down version of the OS. They compare it to WinXP Home & WinXP Pro. Basically the same, but with certain features left out. Like with Photoshop Elements, you don't need all of the features. If you do, buy the full fledged product.
The only real question I have is, how much less would a simple screen-less, G3 (G3+ from IBM), two ram slotted, normal loud fan computer cost? Would manufacturing and shipping actually cut $100 off the cost of creating the thing? I mean, if you're only saving $20 versus an eMac ($799 USD) then you probably couldn't actually sell it for $499. But if it you could trim it down by $100-$200, then a $499 retail price is easy.
As for the average consumer in China and India, I saw tons of pc boxes in internet cafe's every 3 blocks in most big cities. Alot of those purchases were given in conjunction with government subsities of type or another. The infrastructures are mostly govt. or quasi-govt. organizations and companies and those can be possible markets for Xservs and the like.
Given the possible new emphasis on business systems and the possible large cost savings by scale, Apple may be in a position to develop some hardware options that fit whatever software infrastructure China develops.
In Bangalore, I saw signs of "welcome and thank you to Bill Gates" for what little he had done for them ... basically show up; hire some folks and talk about future business. Steve Jobs could do just as well, if not better, with a little face time there himself.
Apple should commission a company they are already partnered with (HP) to ship "white-box" clones to emerging markets where Apple has no presence at all. Anywhere else and Apple would eat into its own sales.
Yup.
And nup.
If Apple isn't reaching certain people...it won't eat its own sales.
HP has thousands more distribution channels than Apple.
Amplify that to areas like China and India where Apple has yet to pull out its finger...
People who want a Mac want a cheaper option. Nothing wrong with that.
It doesn't have to have anything to do with Intel, x86, clones...G3, G4s etc.
HP, China, India.
It's about distribution. Areas Apple can't reach. (Or won't...)
It's about economies of scale. Levels of production Apple can't scale at its current size.
The iPod business model could be replicated elsewhere with select companies eg HP.
As for the 'White box'. A great idea. It only has to be an eMac minus the screen. Smart. White. Chic. Sell it in the HP and China style places Apple can't reach and get those economy of scales working.
There is no suggestion that the 'Apple' experience would be compromised in any way...is the HP iPod compromised?
No. So that is a zealot snobbery ala nonsense smack talk thing going on there.
HP could be a good partner to do this with. They aren't frightened to work with Apple. That's a good start.
I'd like to see this 'White box'. I can see where your idea is coming from.
It's not about clones in the x86 or any conventional sense. It's not about shoddy Apple product either. It's a ration book certification to select companies to let Apple (the puppeteer...) control the HP (puppet) to increase Apple's reach. Under the HP/Apple scheme...both win on the iPod. There's no reason a similar thing couldn't be achieved in non-traditional Apple markets with a Chinese partner or Indian PC maker.
A good idea. It's upto Apple I guess.
Lemon Bon Bon
Originally posted by bunge
Well the "Strawberry" is an Apple controlled box, and would probably be made from the same mother boards as old iMacs or something. There's nothing in the box that is all that different than an eMac, only it's slower/older/cheaper. The benefit is that you can cut the cost of the machine and make it less special without destroying the Apple brand. Even if you license it like the HP iPod, the hardware wouldn't be generic like crappy PC White Box computers and thus you wouldn't have to worry about an unstable environment.
Who wants to sell this? HP decided to delay their intro until they had the latest and greatest iPod, rather than roll out the 3G iPod right before Apple unveiled their 4G. This is the question that killed the clones the first time: The cloners didn't stick to the niches that Apple wasn't targeting (because there were sound reasons why Apple wasn't targeting them!). Instead, they went right for Apple's most profitable bread and butter: The professional market. That's what makes the most business sense.
I also question whether this hypothetical machine wouldn't dilute Apple's brand. It will associate OS X with old, crap hardware. How many kids have we run into that didn't like Macs because their only exposure to them was the lab of undead Performa 5200s at school? It's a completely unfair comparison, but it's made nevertheless.
To anyone that didn't read the article, they mention a somewhat stripped down version of the OS.
First, I question the effectiveness of this tactic for Microsoft. If they really think that a gelded Windows is going to do anything to curb piracy of XP Pro then I want some of what they're smoking.
Second, OS X — and the Mac generally — is a value-added platform. What that means is that it sells on all the cool stuff you get out of the box. When you take that away, what do you have? A Linux-ish OS with a pretty skin. But the "official" Chinese OS will be a Linux, so what will differentiate the Apple OS? Why would you get a Strawberry instead of building your own machine or getting a white box, and installing Red Linux or a pirated copy of XP Pro?
The only real question I have is, how much less would a simple screen-less, G3 (G3+ from IBM), two ram slotted, normal loud fan computer cost? Would manufacturing and shipping actually cut $100 off the cost of creating the thing? I mean, if you're only saving $20 versus an eMac ($799 USD) then you probably couldn't actually sell it for $499. But if it you could trim it down by $100-$200, then a $499 retail price is easy.
You could probably get it down to $499. But the question is, $499 for what? An evolutionary dead-end that is only differentiated from Red Linux by the fact that it runs on one antique platform instead of whatever you want?
Thin clients are cheaper than "fat" clients, too. Nobody buys them. Price is not everything.
Originally posted by MacGregor
The Mac may not be a commodity platform, but OpenGL and Airport and pdf's and codices that are supported by QT, etc. ARE commodity standards that can be adopted by China and give Apple at least a level playing field.
The IEEE, the OpenGL ARB and the MPEG Consortium would all be shocked and amazed to find out that they publish commodity standards. They'd probably react by producing a license with an associated fee structure, and a whole sheaf of patents owned and controlled by private companies.
Of course, any Chinese company can license this tech and use it. But the Chinese government looms large again: If they don't want our operating systems, why would they want our commercial standards? Those, too, turn over profit and control to non-Chinese companies and nations.
The same goes for webpage standards and media DRM standards (which sounds kind of laughable for some place like China) to the extent that they do NOT use MS proprietary formats
Web standards don't generally have any patents associated with them (although MS does have that infuriating patent on style sheets, which they so generously licensed freely... for now), so they are in a different category than industry standards like OpenGL and MPEG. All their standards documents are freely available, and they can be implemented, and those implementations published, at no cost.
As for the average consumer in China and India, I saw tons of pc boxes in internet cafe's every 3 blocks in most big cities. Alot of those purchases were given in conjunction with government subsities of type or another. The infrastructures are mostly govt. or quasi-govt. organizations and companies and those can be possible markets for Xservs and the like.
Oh, I don't doubt for a minute that Apple can find opportunities in China and (especially) India. But I think they can do it in exactly the way you intimate here: By selling their current gear (e.g. Xserves) into a new market.
I'm not questioning the burgeoning adoption of computers in China and India. I'm questioning the idea that Apple should enter this market by allowing "white boxes" to be made that run their stuff.
In Bangalore, I saw signs of "welcome and thank you to Bill Gates" for what little he had done for them ... basically show up; hire some folks and talk about future business. Steve Jobs could do just as well, if not better, with a little face time there himself.
Absolutely. But this has nothing to do with whether Apple should pursue a white box strategy.
The G3 idea is actually very cool. If a few key iLife applications require a G4, then this very low-end Mac would not be a cheap digital hub for Mac enthusiasts. Yet a G3 could run OS X, general K-12 software and the usual office applications. For a low-end home Mac it would get email, access the internet and play solitaire.
Originally posted by Amorph
Who wants to sell this? HP decided to delay their intro until they had the latest and greatest iPod, rather than roll out the 3G iPod right before Apple unveiled their 4G. This is the question that killed the clones the first time: The cloners didn't stick to the niches that Apple wasn't targeting (because there were sound reasons why Apple wasn't targeting them!). Instead, they went right for Apple's most profitable bread and butter: The professional market. That's what makes the most business sense.
Not if it's a subsidiary of Apple. Not if the hardware were designed to do a limited number of things really well, and other things not at all.
The HP iPod is kind of a poor analogy since it's the exact same product at the same price. These computers would be a different product in a different price range. A better analogy would be a $30 portable CD player compared to an iPod. More people purchase $30 portable CD players than purchase iPods, but Apple offer a $30 CD player. So "Strawberry" will.
As for the brand smearing, I'm a bit mixed on it too. But if the "Strawberry" machines were sold on lower expectations (no, this can't play DOOM III, but it can do email and web) then the upsell is possible.
Originally posted by Amorph
You could probably get it down to $499. But the question is, $499 for what? An evolutionary dead-end that is only differentiated from Red Linux by the fact that it runs on one antique platform instead of whatever you want?
Thin clients are cheaper than "fat" clients, too. Nobody buys them. Price is not everything.
Do you really think OS X is no different than Red [Hat] Linux?
i like the comment made about apple wanting to be a premiere... a bmw.... i think this is very true and is why we wont see this spinoff
Originally posted by snoopy
The G3 idea is actually very cool. If a few key iLife applications require a G4, then this very low-end Mac would not be a cheap digital hub for Mac enthusiasts. Yet a G3 could run OS X, general K-12 software and the usual office applications. For a low-end home Mac it would get email, access the internet and play solitaire.
Exactly.
And yes, I put "White Box" in quotes because it wouldn't actually be a White Box, it would be analogous to one though. It's just a cheaper Mac (hopefully) separated enough from the Apple brand to keep from being diluted.
1. Apple in the server market and in the creative and broadcasting industries (which can afford it) can do the same dog and pony show that they do here and in Europe. Pros around the world are playing on the same playing field. People in education in India knew about Apple and knew that it "was good for graphics." Get a few Bollywood studios to use FCP and you'll see some amazing market forces kick in that we haven't seen in decades!
2. But the masses of India, really don't care what they use. They aren't sitting around playing Quake or making iMovies. They are web browsing, blogging and emailing and getting news. Since Safari and I believe iChat are relatively slim/elegant code, I could see that they would be an advantage in countries where bandwidth will be the bottle-neck (not processor speed) for many years to come.
3. I don't understand why Amorph and bunge are so concerned with diluting the Apple brand. There are hundreds of millions of people in those countries who could give a mangooses arse about Apple as a brand. There is nothing there to dilute!! .... outside of the professional studios. So why not partner with someone to make a white box. Put the cheapest G4 chips that can run OSX well, like in the TiBook that I'm using now, and find a couple of factories to crank out a 10 million carbon copy versions of them, 'a la kalishnikovs, and you won't need to worry about all the compatibility problems of supporting dozens of gpu's and such. Those markets don't work that way. You partner with a big company that can do the heavy lifting to make all of the compatible boards and gpu's you need. You make them cheap and available at the street level. You make a standardized YugoMac, paint it pretty colors (colors are important in those nations) and make sure any kid on a street corner can fix it, and you've got a HUGE market...a market that will give you plenty of economy of scale.
The point is, if you do it correctly, the branding of Apple will evolve successfully on its own by the people of India and China, not by Cupertino or Redmond.
Originally posted by MacGregor
3. I don't understand why Amorph and bunge are so concerned with diluting the Apple brand.
1) It was a concern the articles took seriously and for the sake of argument I'm willing to take it seriously.
2) I don't think anyone is worried about Apple's brand in India. It's elsewhere that people are worried about. And they're worried because the company has said they want to keep the brand high end, which precludes the ability to sell a low end box.
Originally posted by bunge
. . . I don't think anyone is worried about Apple's brand in India. It's elsewhere that people are worried about. And they're worried because the company has said they want to keep the brand high end, which precludes the ability to sell a low end box.
If Apple designed a computer that is very cheap to build, I'd bet that Apple would also give it some class. And class can be free once it is beyond the design phase.
I would be more concerned about the Macintosh brand, if it were a G3 and not able to run some of the iLife applications. In this case, using a different variety of apple might do the trick. Any suggestions?