If what you are implying here is that all of Apple's profit is coming from iPod, then I think you must be quite wrong. Because if that were true, why wouldn't Apple dump the (Mac) hardware and just sell the OS? Because they are making $ on it.
You are arguing they could make more money. Fine. Possibly. Possibly not.
( BTW...I actually think that's where Apple is going...just selling the OS...but doing it in one leap would likely be suicidal at this point. )
( BTW...I actually think that's where Apple is going...just selling the OS...but doing it in one leap would likely be suicidal at this point. )
NO WAY! Apple makes money on the hardware not the software (which is subsidised). Apple will not want to have to support all kinds of machines which have varying issues. Cheap computers do not provide a good experience - that's why Apple stopped the clones. It's possible that Apple could licence OS X for Sony but not for all manufacturers. That would be suicidal!
If what you are implying here is that all of Apple's profit is coming from iPod, then I think you must be quite wrong. Because if that were true, why wouldn't Apple dump the (Mac) hardware and just sell the OS? Because they are making $ on it.
You are arguing they could make more money. Fine. Possibly. Possibly not.
( BTW...I actually think that's where Apple is going...just selling the OS...but doing it in one leap would likely be suicidal at this point. )
Dont spin my words, the bulk of apples profits didnt come from computers.
You would have thought they would have learned something from Microsoft who still doesnt have to bother with making computers. Apple is Stupid for wanting to push hardware. Stupid is as stupid does and 3% of the market has shown who is and who isnt stupid.
Microsoft is successful because of volume. As you point out only 3% to MS ~90%. Apple did try this for a while but it lost too much money. Apple found that it need the hardware sales to maintain profitability. Also the R&D for making the OS portable on all combinations of chips and hardware is cost prohibitive. If you can think of a way around these problems I would love to hear it. BTW using stupid with out supporting evidence makes your argument weaker not stronger.
This income statement from the last quarterly report states that even though iPods have 5 times unit sales as cpu's, Macs still bring in more money and you know that the margin on Macs is bigger than on iPods now that the Shuffle has cut that a bit for music players.
Apple will still be a hardware company! Apple has Ives and Ives doesn't do operating systems. Macs will always be the best VALUE and Intel chips are the only way to make this happen (evidently, and unfortunately) in the mid-term. And hacks won't change that either. The 5% who buy Macs now will still do so in 5 years even if others come on board with the change to Intel. The race to hack will just make the geeks that much more into Macs than they are now.
The big things to consider to me are:
1. The Asian market that is worried about a Microsoft controlled world and China which has the power to fight MS if necessary. We are talking now that the big battle is not with MS now in the US and Europe, it is going to be in Asia and that battle won't happen for 5 more years at which point Apple wants to be ready.
2. MS is putting big money into consoles and I'm sure does view them as the future for the living room, so this means that the OS wars will add others to the mix beyond the PC OS's.
3. Apple will CONTINUE to develop OSX cross-platform and who here doesn't think they have Leopard planned for PPC and Xbox and PS3, etc. OSX will lead secret multiple lives from here on out! And if IBM gets its act together, a future switch back in 10 years will be even easier than the switch now.
4. MS and Apple may seem to be switching roles - one from pure software to both and the other from both to just software, but Apple will never be merely software. Bob Cringley made a good argument for iTunes to run off other platforms beyond the iPod, but that won't be necessary for awhile.
5. Look to the iPod to see how Apple can play both the hardware and software games and do well in both. So what if Apple hardware in 3 years is still just the 5% installed base. That is still money in the bank.
6. More and more it is the iApps and the proApps that will drive software products and it will drive hardware sales. Creatives will still buy Macs on Intel because Adobe and FCP and Shake and friends will still run better on them and they will only cost $100 more per unit than the Dell (hopefully).
7. MS is going to have to spend so much time fighting Firefox for the browser wars and Adobe and Apple for the creative wars and Linux and hopefully Apple for the IT wars and Sony for the console wars, that the PC OS wars will seem more and more irrelevant.
In other words, Apple has thrived at <5% market and out R&D'd MS and that will only continue.
Microsoft is successful because of volume. As you point out only 3% to MS ~90%. Apple did try this for a while but it lost too much money. Apple found that it need the hardware sales to maintain profitability. Also the R&D for making the OS portable on all combinations of chips and hardware is cost prohibitive. If you can think of a way around these problems I would love to hear it. BTW using stupid with out supporting evidence makes your argument weaker not stronger.
Example.... I have a product that folks would love but i will only sell this product with a bag of potatoes. 97% of the world has potatoes so how much of my product do you think i will sell? This is a very simplified but accurate analogy of Apples problem. They have a great product but they want to sell you some hardware along with it. Im not saying stop the hardware, iam saying stop ignoring 97% of the planet. Yes i have used Macs for Decades They do a great job styling their machine but the real value is the OS. why not sell that OS to everyone? Rant over.....
Example.... I have a product that folks would love but i will only sell this product with a bag of potatoes. 97% of the world has potatoes so how much of my product do you think i will sell? This is a very simplified but accurate analogy of Apples problem. They have a great product but they want to sell you some hardware along with it. Im not saying stop the hardware, iam saying stop ignoring 97% of the planet. Yes i have used Macs for Decades They do a great job styling their machine but the real value is the OS. why not sell that OS to everyone? Rant over.....
I think in 5 years they may just do that. But they don't need to yet. Apple isn't losing market share now and it is gaining. So why throw out the baby with the bathwater. At some point Dell and MS will start to lose momentum and market share and especially in the developing countries there is plenty of time to sell the OS if necessary. In 5 years I bet if they sell the OS to Dell or HP or Sony, then they will probably bump around at 5% and still be the 6th biggest computer maker and still make huge profits.
Anything else, any other wholesale sellout of the hardware market would be just stupid. I'll buy my potatoes from Apple and they will be the best.
I think in 5 years they may just do that. But they don't need to yet. Apple isn't losing market share now and it is gaining. So why throw out the baby with the bathwater. At some point Dell and MS will start to lose momentum and market share and especially in the developing countries there is plenty of time to sell the OS if necessary. In 5 years I bet if they sell the OS to Dell or HP or Sony, then they will probably bump around at 5% and still be the 6th biggest computer maker and still make huge profits.
Anything else, any other wholesale sellout of the hardware market would be just stupid. I'll buy my potatoes from Apple and they will be the best.
I would have agreed with you before the Intel thing but now they might as well just do it.
Apple does not compete against Linux for future IT sales. Apple and Linux compete against Microsoft for future IT sales.
Let's be clear. Linux and BSD based OS X will cooperate much better for the Fortune 100 and 500. They still have to compete against SUN, HP and IBM. This doesn't even include the Federal Markets.
The big question will be if Apple is really serious about helping taking out Microsoft and its Enterprise solutions, and be satisfied with a solid marketshare, but not a leading marketshare.
It's much more realistic to envision 5 or 6 major players with near equal marketshare than the dominant one (MSFT) leaving the scraps to the UNIX vendors which includes OS X and Linux.
Microsoft knows Linux is eating heavily into its Enterprise Server Revenues.
Linux isn't going to be a big player in the gaming console arena.
Apple isn't going to be a big player in the gaming console arena.
The content creation and enterprise software development arenas is where Apple wants to grow. Content creation includes more than Artists. It includes all forms of media content, from the News to Hollywood.
Either way Intel has to step up and support both Apple and Linux or see AMD embrace them with future open arms.
OS X is subsidised by the hardware. To sell Mac OS X for PCs they would have to charge a lot more for it.
Not really. No. Gross margins on software products are much higher.
Let's examine the current OS X...Tiger...$129...Let's say Apple only actually gets about $80 on average per copy. They have sold 2 million so far...$160M in revenue. I'm guessing that they have paid for the development of Tiger at this point...after this it will be almost pure profit.
It's much more realistic to envision 5 or 6 major players with near equal marketshare
I think that 2-6 is realistic here. If you look at other markets (where "compatibility" is less problemenatic admittedly) you see anywhere from 2-6 "major" (and really only about 3) players:
Example.... I have a product that folks would love but i will only sell this product with a bag of potatoes. 97% of the world has potatoes so how much of my product do you think i will sell? This is a very simplified but accurate analogy of Apples problem. They have a great product but they want to sell you some hardware along with it. Im not saying stop the hardware, iam saying stop ignoring 97% of the planet. Yes i have used Macs for Decades They do a great job styling their machine but the real value is the OS. why not sell that OS to everyone? Rant over.....
But if the potatoes have bad bruises, go off quickly, don't taste good and are difficult to peel they would look for a new supplier when they run out. This is the current switcher market.
I think that 2-6 is realistic here. If you look at other markets (where "compatibility" is less problemenatic admittedly) you see anywhere from 2-6 "major" (and really only about 3) players:
unlike all other examples changing operating system is not easy. The OS ties you in and makes it difficult to go elsewhere.
Right, I know that. Barriers to entry and all of that. But if Apple can get some momentum going...it becomes more realistic me-thinks.
What would be truly interesting would be "Yellow Box" seeing the light of day. Providing something like Xcode for Windows...creating a situation where developers could reate Windows applications using Xcode...and...oh by the way...your applications have a secret "alternate identity"...they could also be built for OS X.
Balmer, for all of his primate-like antics, is right...it is about "Developers! Developers! Developers!"...or at least "Applications! Applications! Applications!"...which are brought to us by "Developers! Developers! Developers!"
Right, I know that. Barriers to entry and all of that. But if Apple can get some momentum going...it becomes more realistic me-thinks.
What would be truly interesting would be "Yellow Box" seeing the light of day. Providing something like Xcode for Windows...creating a situation where developers could reate Windows applications using Xcode...and...oh by the way...your applications have a secret "alternate identity"...they could also be built for OS X.
Balmer, for all of his primate-like antics, is right...it is about "Developers! Developers! Developers!"...or at least "Applications! Applications! Applications!"...which are brought to us by "Developers! Developers! Developers!"
But even if you could run your existing software you've got to transfer your settings etc. which you can't do from one windows machine to another very easily (obviously the Mac is slightly better) BUT no-one will want to switch all the time. Unlike switching from a Ford to a Peugeot it's not easy to switch from Windows to Mac (or any other OS for that matter). I am fluent on both and still would be daunted by it.
Comments
Originally posted by Aurora
Apple has money thanks to the Pods
If what you are implying here is that all of Apple's profit is coming from iPod, then I think you must be quite wrong. Because if that were true, why wouldn't Apple dump the (Mac) hardware and just sell the OS? Because they are making $ on it.
You are arguing they could make more money. Fine. Possibly. Possibly not.
( BTW...I actually think that's where Apple is going...just selling the OS...but doing it in one leap would likely be suicidal at this point. )
:-))
Expect near-100% Mac OS X market share very soon!!!
Once Mac OS X runs on any PC box, Windows and Linux will fade away in months!!!
Near 100% MacTel soon!!! WinTel dead soon!!! Linux dead soon!!!
Originally posted by Chris Cuilla
( BTW...I actually think that's where Apple is going...just selling the OS...but doing it in one leap would likely be suicidal at this point. )
NO WAY! Apple makes money on the hardware not the software (which is subsidised). Apple will not want to have to support all kinds of machines which have varying issues. Cheap computers do not provide a good experience - that's why Apple stopped the clones. It's possible that Apple could licence OS X for Sony but not for all manufacturers. That would be suicidal!
Originally posted by Chris Cuilla
If what you are implying here is that all of Apple's profit is coming from iPod, then I think you must be quite wrong. Because if that were true, why wouldn't Apple dump the (Mac) hardware and just sell the OS? Because they are making $ on it.
You are arguing they could make more money. Fine. Possibly. Possibly not.
( BTW...I actually think that's where Apple is going...just selling the OS...but doing it in one leap would likely be suicidal at this point. )
Dont spin my words, the bulk of apples profits didnt come from computers.
Originally posted by MacCrazy
NO WAY! Apple makes money on the hardware not the software (which is subsidised).
Well, they make money on both.
Originally posted by MacCrazy
Apple will not want to have to support all kinds of machines which have varying issues.
Possibly, but this could be largely mitigated by creating an "OS X Hardware Specification" for licensees (Sony, Lenevo, HP, Dell) to conform to.
Originally posted by MacCrazy
Cheap computers do not provide a good experience - that's why Apple stopped the clones.
Actually, that's not why.
Apple executed its "clone" strategy poorly. It has learned much (and the world has changed much) since then.
Originally posted by Aurora
Dont spin my words, the bulk of apples profits didnt come from computers.
I wasn't. Then why didn't they kill the hardware?
Originally posted by Chris Cuilla
Well, they make money on both.
OS X is subsidised by the hardware. To sell Mac OS X for PCs they would have to charge a lot more for it.
Originally posted by Aurora
You would have thought they would have learned something from Microsoft who still doesnt have to bother with making computers. Apple is Stupid for wanting to push hardware. Stupid is as stupid does and 3% of the market has shown who is and who isnt stupid.
Microsoft is successful because of volume. As you point out only 3% to MS ~90%. Apple did try this for a while but it lost too much money. Apple found that it need the hardware sales to maintain profitability. Also the R&D for making the OS portable on all combinations of chips and hardware is cost prohibitive. If you can think of a way around these problems I would love to hear it. BTW using stupid with out supporting evidence makes your argument weaker not stronger.
Originally posted by Aurora
Dont spin my words, the bulk of apples profits didnt come from computers.
Hi Aurora
Are you sure of this? http://images.apple.com/pr/pdf/q205data_sum.pdf
This income statement from the last quarterly report states that even though iPods have 5 times unit sales as cpu's, Macs still bring in more money and you know that the margin on Macs is bigger than on iPods now that the Shuffle has cut that a bit for music players.
Apple will still be a hardware company! Apple has Ives and Ives doesn't do operating systems. Macs will always be the best VALUE and Intel chips are the only way to make this happen (evidently, and unfortunately) in the mid-term. And hacks won't change that either. The 5% who buy Macs now will still do so in 5 years even if others come on board with the change to Intel. The race to hack will just make the geeks that much more into Macs than they are now.
The big things to consider to me are:
1. The Asian market that is worried about a Microsoft controlled world and China which has the power to fight MS if necessary. We are talking now that the big battle is not with MS now in the US and Europe, it is going to be in Asia and that battle won't happen for 5 more years at which point Apple wants to be ready.
2. MS is putting big money into consoles and I'm sure does view them as the future for the living room, so this means that the OS wars will add others to the mix beyond the PC OS's.
3. Apple will CONTINUE to develop OSX cross-platform and who here doesn't think they have Leopard planned for PPC and Xbox and PS3, etc. OSX will lead secret multiple lives from here on out! And if IBM gets its act together, a future switch back in 10 years will be even easier than the switch now.
4. MS and Apple may seem to be switching roles - one from pure software to both and the other from both to just software, but Apple will never be merely software. Bob Cringley made a good argument for iTunes to run off other platforms beyond the iPod, but that won't be necessary for awhile.
5. Look to the iPod to see how Apple can play both the hardware and software games and do well in both. So what if Apple hardware in 3 years is still just the 5% installed base. That is still money in the bank.
6. More and more it is the iApps and the proApps that will drive software products and it will drive hardware sales. Creatives will still buy Macs on Intel because Adobe and FCP and Shake and friends will still run better on them and they will only cost $100 more per unit than the Dell (hopefully).
7. MS is going to have to spend so much time fighting Firefox for the browser wars and Adobe and Apple for the creative wars and Linux and hopefully Apple for the IT wars and Sony for the console wars, that the PC OS wars will seem more and more irrelevant.
In other words, Apple has thrived at <5% market and out R&D'd MS and that will only continue.
Originally posted by AquaMac
Microsoft is successful because of volume. As you point out only 3% to MS ~90%. Apple did try this for a while but it lost too much money. Apple found that it need the hardware sales to maintain profitability. Also the R&D for making the OS portable on all combinations of chips and hardware is cost prohibitive. If you can think of a way around these problems I would love to hear it. BTW using stupid with out supporting evidence makes your argument weaker not stronger.
Example.... I have a product that folks would love but i will only sell this product with a bag of potatoes. 97% of the world has potatoes so how much of my product do you think i will sell? This is a very simplified but accurate analogy of Apples problem. They have a great product but they want to sell you some hardware along with it. Im not saying stop the hardware, iam saying stop ignoring 97% of the planet. Yes i have used Macs for Decades
Originally posted by Aurora
Example.... I have a product that folks would love but i will only sell this product with a bag of potatoes. 97% of the world has potatoes so how much of my product do you think i will sell? This is a very simplified but accurate analogy of Apples problem. They have a great product but they want to sell you some hardware along with it. Im not saying stop the hardware, iam saying stop ignoring 97% of the planet. Yes i have used Macs for Decades
I think in 5 years they may just do that. But they don't need to yet. Apple isn't losing market share now and it is gaining. So why throw out the baby with the bathwater. At some point Dell and MS will start to lose momentum and market share and especially in the developing countries there is plenty of time to sell the OS if necessary. In 5 years I bet if they sell the OS to Dell or HP or Sony, then they will probably bump around at 5% and still be the 6th biggest computer maker and still make huge profits.
Anything else, any other wholesale sellout of the hardware market would be just stupid. I'll buy my potatoes from Apple and they will be the best.
Originally posted by MacGregor
I think in 5 years they may just do that. But they don't need to yet. Apple isn't losing market share now and it is gaining. So why throw out the baby with the bathwater. At some point Dell and MS will start to lose momentum and market share and especially in the developing countries there is plenty of time to sell the OS if necessary. In 5 years I bet if they sell the OS to Dell or HP or Sony, then they will probably bump around at 5% and still be the 6th biggest computer maker and still make huge profits.
Anything else, any other wholesale sellout of the hardware market would be just stupid. I'll buy my potatoes from Apple and they will be the best.
I would have agreed with you before the Intel thing but now they might as well just do it.
Originally posted by Aurora
I would have agreed with you before the Intel thing but now they might as well just do it.
I think they will. Just one step at a time. First make sure that OS X-intel is rock solid and all of the apps are there.
Let's be clear. Linux and BSD based OS X will cooperate much better for the Fortune 100 and 500. They still have to compete against SUN, HP and IBM. This doesn't even include the Federal Markets.
The big question will be if Apple is really serious about helping taking out Microsoft and its Enterprise solutions, and be satisfied with a solid marketshare, but not a leading marketshare.
It's much more realistic to envision 5 or 6 major players with near equal marketshare than the dominant one (MSFT) leaving the scraps to the UNIX vendors which includes OS X and Linux.
Microsoft knows Linux is eating heavily into its Enterprise Server Revenues.
Linux isn't going to be a big player in the gaming console arena.
Apple isn't going to be a big player in the gaming console arena.
The content creation and enterprise software development arenas is where Apple wants to grow. Content creation includes more than Artists. It includes all forms of media content, from the News to Hollywood.
Either way Intel has to step up and support both Apple and Linux or see AMD embrace them with future open arms.
Originally posted by MacCrazy
OS X is subsidised by the hardware. To sell Mac OS X for PCs they would have to charge a lot more for it.
Not really. No. Gross margins on software products are much higher.
Let's examine the current OS X...Tiger...$129...Let's say Apple only actually gets about $80 on average per copy. They have sold 2 million so far...$160M in revenue. I'm guessing that they have paid for the development of Tiger at this point...after this it will be almost pure profit.
Originally posted by mdriftmeyer
It's much more realistic to envision 5 or 6 major players with near equal marketshare
I think that 2-6 is realistic here. If you look at other markets (where "compatibility" is less problemenatic admittedly) you see anywhere from 2-6 "major" (and really only about 3) players:
Soft Drinks: Coke & Pepsi
Cars: GM, Ford, Toyota, Daimler-Chrysler, Nissan, Honda
TV: ABC, NBC, CBS, Fox
Newspapers in any big city...2...3 max.
Computers: HP, Dell, Lenevo(IBM), Sony
Airlines: United, American, Delta
Why not OSes?
My examples are probably in need of some tweaks, but you get the point.
But, then, we may be getting a bit ahead of ourselves here.
Originally posted by Aurora
Example.... I have a product that folks would love but i will only sell this product with a bag of potatoes. 97% of the world has potatoes so how much of my product do you think i will sell? This is a very simplified but accurate analogy of Apples problem. They have a great product but they want to sell you some hardware along with it. Im not saying stop the hardware, iam saying stop ignoring 97% of the planet. Yes i have used Macs for Decades
But if the potatoes have bad bruises, go off quickly, don't taste good and are difficult to peel they would look for a new supplier when they run out. This is the current switcher market.
Originally posted by Chris Cuilla
I think that 2-6 is realistic here. If you look at other markets (where "compatibility" is less problemenatic admittedly) you see anywhere from 2-6 "major" (and really only about 3) players:
Soft Drinks: Coke & Pepsi
Cars: GM, Ford, Toyota, Daimler-Chrysler, Nissan, Honda
TV: ABC, NBC, CBS, Fox
Newspapers in any big city...2...3 max.
Computers: HP, Dell, Lenevo(IBM), Sony
Airlines: United, American, Delta
Why not OSes?
My examples are probably in need of some tweaks, but you get the point.
But, then, we may be getting a bit ahead of ourselves here.
unlike all other examples changing operating system is not easy. The OS ties you in and makes it difficult to go elsewhere.
Originally posted by MacCrazy
unlike all other examples changing operating system is not easy. The OS ties you in and makes it difficult to go elsewhere.
Right, I know that. Barriers to entry and all of that. But if Apple can get some momentum going...it becomes more realistic me-thinks.
What would be truly interesting would be "Yellow Box" seeing the light of day. Providing something like Xcode for Windows...creating a situation where developers could reate Windows applications using Xcode...and...oh by the way...your applications have a secret "alternate identity"...they could also be built for OS X.
Balmer, for all of his primate-like antics, is right...it is about "Developers! Developers! Developers!"...or at least "Applications! Applications! Applications!"...which are brought to us by "Developers! Developers! Developers!"
Originally posted by Chris Cuilla
Right, I know that. Barriers to entry and all of that. But if Apple can get some momentum going...it becomes more realistic me-thinks.
What would be truly interesting would be "Yellow Box" seeing the light of day. Providing something like Xcode for Windows...creating a situation where developers could reate Windows applications using Xcode...and...oh by the way...your applications have a secret "alternate identity"...they could also be built for OS X.
Balmer, for all of his primate-like antics, is right...it is about "Developers! Developers! Developers!"...or at least "Applications! Applications! Applications!"...which are brought to us by "Developers! Developers! Developers!"
But even if you could run your existing software you've got to transfer your settings etc. which you can't do from one windows machine to another very easily (obviously the Mac is slightly better) BUT no-one will want to switch all the time. Unlike switching from a Ford to a Peugeot it's not easy to switch from Windows to Mac (or any other OS for that matter). I am fluent on both and still would be daunted by it.