The return of cloning? Macbook reveals plot

Posted:
in General Discussion edited January 2014
During the MWSF 2006 keynote Steve said that they changed the name of the pro laptops because they wanted to have "Mac" in the name.



This is undoubtedly a move that will happen across the whole line. The reason? Clones will be coming. Now that Apple is on Intel cloning becomes a much cheaper affair. They no longer have to design the hardware only to let cloners eat their lunch without bringing anything.



Apple is adding Mac to the name of all their computers so that once clones come back they will have the marketing advantage of "Mac" in their name. No other clone will be able to come close.



You heard it here first.

Comments

  • Reply 1 of 16
    majormattmajormatt Posts: 1,077member
    I doubt it.
  • Reply 2 of 16
    bergzbergz Posts: 1,045member
    Wouldn't it be more Occam to just release a non-Mac OS X?



    --B
  • Reply 3 of 16
    ipeonipeon Posts: 1,122member
    Apple would make more money selling Mac OS X to existing PC users. The OS is where the money is, look at M$ for proof even with such a sucky OS at that!
  • Reply 4 of 16
    hmurchisonhmurchison Posts: 12,341member
    Correct iPeon



    Licensing the OS allows you to make money off of every computer shipped without worrying too much about the logistics.



    Intel designs the chipsets and Apple simply needs to be in front of them driverwise.



    I'm not saying that this will happen immediately but I'm curious as to why Apple thinks it's so important to have "Mac" in the name of their products when people call any Apple computer a "Mac" anyways. Unless, Apple is preparing for the day the Mac will have to be marketed as the Macintosh from Apple.
  • Reply 5 of 16
    cosmonutcosmonut Posts: 4,872member
    Interesting. What players to we see stepping up to the plate? Might we see Sony, HP, or even Dell releasing "clones?"
  • Reply 6 of 16
    hmurchisonhmurchison Posts: 12,341member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by CosmoNut

    Interesting. What players to we see stepping up to the plate? Might we see Sony, HP, or even Dell releasing "clones?"



    They would provide instant credibility. Unlike Motorola, Supermac and Power Computing.
  • Reply 7 of 16
    addaboxaddabox Posts: 12,660member
    Well, I would have guessed the "Mac" differentiator was a response to competing more directly in the PC market, post Intel. Plus, making sure to extend the mind share afforded by the IPod explosion.



    Certainly most Mac users call their machines that, but I don't think you can ever really underestimate the ignorance/indifference of the average computer buyer.



    "What kind of computer you got there"?



    "MacBook"



    "Mac, huh? Thems the fellers that make them IPods, right?"



    "Right"



    "Thats pretty cool. I now stand ready to obey Steve Job's every command."



    Or something along those lines.
  • Reply 8 of 16
    brussellbrussell Posts: 9,812member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by addabox

    Well, I would have guessed the "Mac" differentiator was a response to competing more directly in the PC market, post Intel. Plus, making sure to extend the mind share afforded by the IPod explosion.



    Right. I think the ultimate reason for the use of the "Mac" name is to differentiate Apple's own product lines. Half of their business now is in iPods and other non-computer entertainment, and that will only increase. So they want to make sure their computer business is clearly differentiated from their future set-top boxes and video iPods and all that.



    I think what Apple has been signaling is that they're going the opposite direction from "clones," and I think it makes a lot of sense. They're going to allow Windows to run on Macs, but they're going to try to stop those who try to use OS X on non-Apple PCs. They want the Mac to be known as the all-purpose machine: run OS X, Windows, and *nix, all natively. Like Macs, but want to play your PC games? You're OK. Can't live without Outlook at work? You're covered.
  • Reply 9 of 16
    rageousrageous Posts: 2,170member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by BRussell

    Right. I think the ultimate reason for the use of the "Mac" name is to differentiate Apple's own product lines. Half of their business now is in iPods and other non-computer entertainment, and that will only increase. So they want to make sure their computer business is clearly differentiated from their future set-top boxes and video iPods and all that.



    I think what Apple has been signaling is that they're going the opposite direction from "clones," and I think it makes a lot of sense. They're going to allow Windows to run on Macs, but they're going to try to stop those who try to use OS X on non-Apple PCs. They want the Mac to be known as the all-purpose machine: run OS X, Windows, and *nix, all natively. Like Macs, but want to play your PC games? You're OK. Can't live without Outlook at work? You're covered. [/B]



    Yes.



    Clones will not be coming. What you need to remember is that you won't end up with another OS maker getting as huge as MS did, because MS swindled the hardware makers and they won't allow themselves to get screwed like that again. It's not the same market anymore. MS capitalized at a perfect time for them. Apple is not looking at the same market conditions now that existed when Microsoft stepped in and assumed the goliath position.



    Things you can count on: Death, taxes, and no more iPod minis, Cubes, Newtons or CLONES!
  • Reply 10 of 16
    addaboxaddabox Posts: 12,660member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by rageous



    .....Things you can count on: Death, taxes, and no more iPod minis, Cubes, Newtons or CLONES!



    (cough)or apple projectors(cough)
  • Reply 11 of 16
    fotnsfotns Posts: 301member
    I agree totally. They will probably go in steps. First license some other manufacturers like Gateway or HP to build up more hardware support and 3rd party drivers. Then they will eventually sell a boxed release. Someday you will be able to go to Best Buy or Circuit City and see computers label Mac compliant as well as Windows compliant.
  • Reply 12 of 16
    addaboxaddabox Posts: 12,660member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by FotNS

    I agree totally. They will probably go in steps. First license some other manufacturers like Gateway or HP to build up more hardware support and 3rd party drivers. Then they will eventually sell a boxed release. Someday you will be able to go to Best Buy or Circuit City and see computers label Mac compliant as well as Windows compliant.



    And the same reasons why not that have always been in play are still in play.



    Being able to buy cheap commodity hardware that runs Mac OS kills Apple's hardware sales dead.



    Yes, there is a small subset (of an already small market share) of Mac users that genuinely prefer the superior fit and finish of Apple made stuff. But for most people cost is king, and particularly if the idea is to broaden the installed user base of OS X then new adopters would be prone to going "what they know".



    Now, if the larger theory is that Apple intends to exit the computer hardware business, that's another argument.
  • Reply 13 of 16
    ipeonipeon Posts: 1,122member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by rageous

    Yes.



    Clones will not be coming. What you need to remember is that you won't end up with another OS maker getting as huge as MS did, because MS swindled the hardware makers and they won't allow themselves to get screwed like that again. It's not the same market anymore. MS capitalized at a perfect time for them. Apple is not looking at the same market conditions now that existed when Microsoft stepped in and assumed the goliath position.




    I disagree, given the "fed up" mindset regarding MS and Windows: spy-ware, viruses, convicted monopolist with a history of shady dealings, bloated software, you know the majority would prefer a better OS to Windows, they are just stuck with Windows.



    Mac OS X could very easily become the preferred OS if, if, if... IF... Apple sells the OS as a stand alone OS to current PC users. The apps are there or coming very soon, everything is in place.



  • Reply 14 of 16
    rageousrageous Posts: 2,170member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by iPeon

    Mac OS X could very easily become the preferred OS if, if, if... IF... Apple sells the OS as a stand alone OS to current PC users. The apps are there or coming very soon, everything is in place.









    It won't happen. You can't offer the same user experience across unlimited numbers of hardware configurations. In additional, the PC crowd would start shitting bricks if they realized that with Macs you need very recent versions of the OS to run most software. Apple has a 'screw legacy' mentality that makes them nimble, but would completely alienate a lot of the PC people that love running the same OS for 12 straight years and expect the newest apps be written for it.



    Not to mention, it's NOT all about the OS as some people would like to believe. If you need evidence to support that claim, crack open a Powermac. Apple actually takes the time to try and make the INSIDE of their computers look beautiful too. If it were all about the OS, they wouldn't bother.



    Apple is a hardware company. This can not be repeated enough times.
  • Reply 15 of 16
    ipeonipeon Posts: 1,122member
    This is what happens when we engage in debates, we get all twisted and off track, stuck into irrelevancies and non-associative issues. But ok, lets debate a bit here.



    Some PC users don't upgrade the OS because it's a pain in the ass to do so with PC. In some cases you need new hardware to even upgrade the PC. In other cases, you don't really have upgrades, you have different OS's. As for Macs requiring the most recent OS to run most software, you must be referring to Tiger, my understanding is that it was a major upgrade hence the issue with some apps. This does not equal that Apple has a 'screw legacy' mentality that makes them nimble. Matter of fact MS has a much worse case history regarding breaking apps with upgrades.



    Apple does make great hardware no doubt about that, however, without the OS is would be pointless, so YES, it is about the OS. I don't use Macs because the are beautiful, really, I don't.



    If Mac OS X was available to PC users, MAC OS X would outsell Windows.
  • Reply 16 of 16
    ionyzionyz Posts: 491member
    OS X for PCs? I don't think we (Apple, Mac users, PC users, the world, haha) are there yet. But something has to be up with the renaming don't you think? So PowerBook G4 becomes MacBook Pro. We see it as, "maybe this makes sense to inform consumers it no longer uses a PowerPC processors". While consumers think, "Wait, what happened to the PowerBook? Are these new portables no longer Powerful?" Oh but, no no. Apple has done a pretty good job expounding on how much faster these are.



    Still, something is up. Maybe they are going more consumer electronic. Boggles the mind what you can do when you have money (iPod) to develop with
Sign In or Register to comment.