... except not for Mac clones.
What they should do is sell limited licenses to other companies who want to make what Apple itself doesn't want to sell. Then maybe we'd get a tablet Mac or a 2 pound subnotebook. Not all good ideas come from Apple itself.
Comments
Originally posted by Kolchak
Not all good ideas come from Apple itself.
Don't let Steve hear you say that!
Apple will never (IMO) licence the Mac OS mainly because Apple believe they make the best software and the best hardware for that software....
Moving to Mac OS
1) MacTel systems will allow consumers to directly compare the prices with WinTel systems.
2) Consequentially, there will be more pressure for Apple to either reduce prices and/or produce more exotic designs.
3) As a result, Apple's hardware margin drops and OS licensing becomes more attractive.
Rather than stylish sub-notebooks, I could see this happening to more commodity designs such as business desktops or educational machines. Why should Apple build low-profit eMacs and Minis? Outsource that work to Dell, who is good at it and makes money on volume.
Originally posted by benjamin_r
Apple will never (IMO) licence the Mac OS mainly because Apple believe they make the best software and the best hardware for that software....
History says differently, though. For the brief time when Apple licensed clones, those small companies were kicking Apple's fanny in terms of quality and innovation. I owned a Power Computing system. It was faster, cheaper and more versatile than Apple's own products at the time. That's probably part of the reason Apple had to stop the clone licensing. They were being shamed by these smaller, more agile companies.
Companies could buy bulk licenses of this DRM update from Apple.
Imagine, a switcher with a great desktop PC can buy Mac OS 4.XX for x86 instead of windows XP.xxx for his next upgrade. Then maybe he'll really want the whole enchilada next time around after that and buy a mac desktop. Point is he could switch laterally into the cycle, rather than having to put a whole lot in up front. (or downgrade to a mini and prehaps be dissapointed)
my .02 I'm getting alot of people to go mac, this would only help me out!
john
I say this for for all kinds of reasons.
Apple makes nearly all the software for it anyway and OS X is very portable to different CPU architectures.
They really don't sell a whole lot of Xserves, Va. Tech and others notwithstanding.
Even then Xserves are often quite a good deal, especially in the scientific arena if they remain a G5 system, which they probably will at least until the very end of the Intel transition. By then we can hope that either Intel pulls their server chips together, or Apple starts using AMD's Operton which is quite similar to the G5 in performance in the same factors that makes scientific applications like it.
Xserve RAID is a great deal, note Oracle's use of it.
Some of Apple's other enterprise software, Xsan especially, is also fantastic.
If Dell (HP, and others) are pushing OS X Server, and they probably would, suddenly all those entrenched anti-Mac OS guys in the mid level corporate network admin/support people world have to actually take a look at OS X, and that's a huge factor in shifting companies to even partial Mac use since those same people are often the ones able to prevent Mac use.
This also lets companies like Dell sell server stuff to the Feds and corporations, something that Apple really isn't that good at doing. Apple could probably cut a deal with a couple of them to resell their stuff to specific areas, letting Dell say sell OS X Server on whatever servers to the feds, plus Apple hardware for the complete solution.
I can't see Apple actually licensing OS X consumer in the near to mid future for all kinds of reasons (hardware sales still do too good at Apple, Steve Jobs, fiasco of last clones, having to support the same huge variety of hardware that Microsoft can't keep up with despite dozens of times the resources, etc.) but OS X Server is a nice alternative to Server 2003 and the various Linux flavours.
I had previously supported the same limited cloning idea, but only when it looked like Apple might choose to use the Cell. The limited number of companies that would probably make computers using the Cell; i.e. Sony and Toshiba, would prevent that spiraling out of control bit.
Originally posted by onstage
While there's no question that the seamless integration of OS and hardware is important to the "mac experience" I think that some form of OS only sales might really help Apple, especially when all the high-margin digital lifestyle gadgets they sell would work better talking to their native OS.
Imagine, a switcher with a great desktop PC can buy Mac OS 4.XX for x86 instead of windows XP.xxx for his next upgrade. Then maybe he'll really want the whole enchilada next time around after that and buy a mac desktop. Point is he could switch laterally into the cycle, rather than having to put a whole lot in up front. (or downgrade to a mini and prehaps be dissapointed)
my .02 I'm getting alot of people to go mac, this would only help me out!
john
Why the heck would ANYONE be stupid enough to buy a Mac when they can run Mac OS X on a PC box?
Use your head, man. There is no experience past Mac OS X, as long as you have Firewire ports.
Originally posted by Placebo
Why the heck would ANYONE be stupid enough to buy a Mac when they can run Mac OS X on a PC box?
Use your head, man. There is no experience past Mac OS X, as long as you have Firewire ports.
Easy man! No need to be hasty. I LIKE the industrial design of mac products. I might build myself a desktop i didn't have to look at ... but a notebook, now that's another question! For me, and alot of other mac users the quality of actually looking at/interacting with the computer is important. in fact I've "sold" several friends on switching solely becaase the macs are pretty. (they've thanked me again after they realize how good OS X is)
my .02
john
Originally posted by Placebo
Why the heck would ANYONE be stupid enough to buy a Mac when they can run Mac OS X on a PC box?
1. Something different than an ATX case.
2. Elegant design.
3. Top quality.
Oh wait, that is why people buy Apple computers now.
Originally posted by iShawn
again? When did it first... BTW: I have been a Mac Fan since Panther... so I don't know the history.
Apple allowed Mac-compatibles back in the mid-1990s. Such companies as Motorola, UMAX, and Power Computing sold them. They were not really clones because they all used Apple-supplied Toolbox ROMs.
You hear people raking Jobs over the coals for "killing the clones." Apple allowed Mac-compatibles because they were supposed to penetrate markets that Apple could not. The "clones" were supposed to be part of a larger strategy to increase the marketshare of the MacOS. However, they chose to compete with Apple for its customers rather than compete with Compaq and Gateway for their customers. In one of the unkindest cuts, Motorola, manufacturer of the PPC and seller of the Star Max Mac-compatible, mandated that all of its operations use Windows.
Apple didn't differentiate its product line from the PC makers, and most of their systems were overpriced and under specced. When the clones came in with better systems at a lower price and up to date business practices such as built to order systems, Apple was in real trouble.
However, the Apple of Steve Jobs is a very different company than the Apple of Gil Amelio. You didn't see the innovative hardware or software back then, only bean counters crunching the numbers.
Originally posted by BenRoethig
1. Something different than an ATX case.
2. Elegant design.
3. Top quality.
Oh wait, that is why people buy Apple computers now.
Sorry, but I, and the other people I know who use OS X, don't buy their Macs for having a pretty little white box.