ZachPruckowski, This is all my own speculation, but I think it just seems obvious, and many people probably agree with me on this.
Apple has obviously had their own Office Application for quite some time that they toy with, but they do not fully release it to keep good relations with MS, and to gain switchers that rely on Office that are less willing to take on a new Application no matter how easy it is.
And, being that Microsoft just signed another new contractual agreement deal with Apple, and MS office on Mac sales I think have almost out grown PC office sales chances of them dropping it are about 1%.
I agree, just wanted to raise the point that MS might also be opposed to a Dell-Apple deal, since everyone was focusing on potential Apple objections. MS does have ammo, but I agree that it's unlikely to use it, but it's sort of a scare tactic. Apple knows it can't offend MS, because if MS wanted to, it could probably kill Apple (which would get it in serious DoJ trouble obviously, and I doubt MS would do it)
As to the "Apple Office Suite" idea, while I think that Apple could have something hidden (like an AppleWorks 7 or something), the fact is that most people ask "Does it run MS Office like my machine at work?", and hear the No and stop listening before the But. That's Open Office's problem right now on Windows. I would love an AppleWorks 7 or a real iWork, but I agree that it was shelved to keep MS Office on the Mac.
icfireballs I wasn't talking to any one in particular so there is no need to single your self out here. I was just saying this discussion is a little bit ridiculous. Why discuss things that are not going to happen. But even so. If Apple did license their OS to Dell, which is essentially giving it to every PC, I think your reasoning is flawed. Apple stands to gain more in sales in the end by owning the whole package. Everybody knows the Tortoise beats the Hare every time.
I wasn't singling myself out per se...I was rather using my thoughts as representative of people who have entertained the possibility of Apple licensing OS X to dell -- but still not declaring its probability or likely hood seriously.
Quote:
Originally posted by ZachPruckowski
That would succeed in selling lots of copies of OS X at $80ish, and lots of copies of $129 iLife to consumers. Apple would rather sell you the whole computer and make fewer sales, because one of the large issues with Windows is that is has to support every peripheral, motherboard, x86 processor, video card, networking card, etc released up to 2-3 years previous to the OS's launch.
That's sort of what Apple would face, since Dell would chafe at the idea of Apple dictating only a narrow range of video cards and motherboards. Now Apple can obviously set some limits (like requiring SSE3 or PCI-E, and dropping a few things, like PS/2), but any Apple OS has to work with everything that comes with the computer it comes on.
The idea of licensing Mac OS X to Dell ins't to increase Mac OS X sales or iLife and iWork sales in the future. The idea would be to decrease Window's marketshare. When you signifficantly increase the market share in general, you also signifficantly increase the market in share for Apple due to the domino effect. People start buying from dell leading to more hype, popularity, gaming and business market, thus higher sales, and thus Apple's hardware marketshare goes up as well -- espessially if they maintain their innovation (over "beige boxed" alternatives like Dell.
Now regardless of that argument above, I concede that there are certainly other factors which would effect a choice by Apple to (or not to) license Mac OS X to dell. The first of which is the overall user experience. With dell selling potentially subpar hardware with Mac OS X -- or not nessesarily subpar but just not integrated and seemless, this would weaken Apple's prestige. Another factor would be control. If Apple releases a product or software, they can easily control their hardware range to match that product.
On a seperate note, consider Apple's licensing of the iPod to HP. Apple controled HP's pricing, etc. Apple could do the same for dell with dells own computers with Apple on them -- OR -- even better: Apple could license its own computers (i.e. MacBook) to dell to be either retailed through dell branded by Apple or retailed through dell branded by apple+dell. This would be usefull because of dell's outeach to a large portion of the PC market. Plus dell could pre-install Windows on the Dell+Apple models.
ZachPruckowski, I understood what you meant the first time, but you obviously seem to think 10 years from now this will be better for Apple. 10 yrears from now people will be saying this is where Apple Fv¢K£d up. If they did it. And they wont. They are not that stupid. They have come too far in past 10 years to let it all fly away in a day.
I agree icfireball, the goal of a Dell-Apple deal is a straight shot at Windows. But I was trying to point out that even if Apple sales fell, Apple still wouldn't lose money. People often talk about $80-100 software not making up for a $2000 computer, but margins-wise it almost does when you add in additional sales of iWork, not to mention FCE/FCP/Apeture/etc, as well as bringing more developers. But yes, the ultimate goal would be to take Windows down a peg.
Apple has two enemies: Dell/HP/Lenovo/Gateway/etc. and Microsoft. I could see Apple allying against Microsoft only if they thought they could still sell hardware without the major SW perks, and only if they thought they could maintain the Mac and OS X brand names with a good user experience on the OEM computers.
I don't know if it will be better or worse for Apple in ten years. I think it's a risk, and it could go either way. I can see benefits as well as perils. I'm not in favor of the idea, or even advocating for it, I'm just saying it's not a definitively bad move based on how I see things, but it's not necessarily a good move.
Just to throw an idea out there: What if Apple only licenses Tiger (and not Leopard) to run on Dells? If Leopard is as good as people seem to be hoping, it's still plenty of incentive to get a Mac, but having a larger OS X marketshare will still attract developers. That way, Apple can maintain it's strategy of having an integrated experience and of having the software as a "lure" to it's hardware.
My thinking is all based on my thinking that once Windows marketshare drops below 80% on the desktop in homes and businesses, the game changes. When Windows has over 75-80 percent, Mac sales are irrelevant. But porting becomes more likely when Mac sales could add a serious bit to a company's bottom line.
1. I see Apple holding back for some reason on the one hand, seeing as it's not doing all it can to become the predominant OS, namely licensing it, despite many baby steps in this direction. Many chalk it up to it being a risk for hardware sales.
2. I also see it not doing all it can to eat Dell in the hardware vein, since a low-end solution would eat at both Dell and iMac sales. And yet there's Boot Camp.
So what are they trying to do? SJ has said many times that the advantage to having 5% market share is that you only need 5% to double it.
But I think that's facetious. Most faithfuls believe that there's an ace up Apple's sleeve, a golden axe that will fall and resolve this paradox. Perhaps Apple will try both at once, making the best, fastest Windows hardware and at the same time offering the best alternative OS. Of course, many feel that this could even reduce the market share of the OS.
Not going to happen. I think it's going to take some serious developers to get Mac OS Leopard to run on a PC. If they can't even get Tiger running up to spec on one yet, they are not going to have much luck with Leopard.
My 2¢
The only great thing Apple has ever made is Mac OS X. They've ditched the shitty hardware for the worthwhile x86 architecture, albeit overpriced installations of it.
The only great thing Apple has ever made is Mac OS X. They've ditched the shitty hardware for the worthwhile x86 architecture, albeit overpriced installations of it.
List of Apple's unsung achievements part one.
The GUI - Developed, and abandoned by XEROX
The Mouse. Another abandoned technology - Bill Gates said was silly.
FireWire
USB seen years ahead on the Mac.
The PowerMac 9600 (still have mine)
iLife - Suite - Many apps.
Aperture - Off to a great start.
FCP - Perfected by Apple
iTunes - Need I say more
iPod - again Duh.
DVD SP - I use this constantly
Motion - Off to a great start.
SHAKE - keeps getting better after Apple buyout.
just scratching the surface here, but I could go on for days because there is not much that Apple does that is not great. THe last Apple failure was the cube, and they just morphed it into a successful computer - the MacMIni.
micheal dell said he would be very interested in having OSX on DELL computers. i think its an awsome idea and one day it will def happen. wait and see.
Many people have said that Apple would never switch to intel. They did.
Many people have said Apple would release a tablet mac. They haven't.
There is no point in saying Apple will or will not license Mac OS X to Dell. We all know Dell wants it -- but does Apple? That is the point of the thread. Would Apple benifit from licensing Mac OS X to Dell, and what would they hope to gain by doing so?
The only great thing Apple has ever made is Mac OS X. They've ditched the shitty hardware for the worthwhile x86 architecture, albeit overpriced installations of it.
Placebo. We all know you can do better posts than this.
I don't think you guys realize how much Dell sucks. They've missed their quarterly earnings twice in a row now. If Dell doesn't make changes soon that seriously affect how they do business they will be overtaken by HP within a couple of years.
well im far from an expert but if apple can get windows to work on a mac via boot camp cant dell get OSX to work on a dell through there own bootcamp type program?
well im far from an expert but if apple can get windows to work on a mac via boot camp cant dell get OSX to work on a dell through there own bootcamp type program?
Not legally without Apple's OK. Microsoft doesn't mind Apples running Windows, because it's an extra $200 a copy for them, but Apple minds Dell running OS X, because then it loses hardware sales. So if Dell went ahead and did it anyways, they'd face a huge lawsuit from Apple, as would every one who buys one.
Comments
Originally posted by onlooker
ZachPruckowski, This is all my own speculation, but I think it just seems obvious, and many people probably agree with me on this.
Apple has obviously had their own Office Application for quite some time that they toy with, but they do not fully release it to keep good relations with MS, and to gain switchers that rely on Office that are less willing to take on a new Application no matter how easy it is.
And, being that Microsoft just signed another new contractual agreement deal with Apple, and MS office on Mac sales I think have almost out grown PC office sales chances of them dropping it are about 1%.
I agree, just wanted to raise the point that MS might also be opposed to a Dell-Apple deal, since everyone was focusing on potential Apple objections. MS does have ammo, but I agree that it's unlikely to use it, but it's sort of a scare tactic. Apple knows it can't offend MS, because if MS wanted to, it could probably kill Apple (which would get it in serious DoJ trouble obviously, and I doubt MS would do it)
As to the "Apple Office Suite" idea, while I think that Apple could have something hidden (like an AppleWorks 7 or something), the fact is that most people ask "Does it run MS Office like my machine at work?", and hear the No and stop listening before the But. That's Open Office's problem right now on Windows. I would love an AppleWorks 7 or a real iWork, but I agree that it was shelved to keep MS Office on the Mac.
Originally posted by onlooker
icfireballs I wasn't talking to any one in particular so there is no need to single your self out here. I was just saying this discussion is a little bit ridiculous. Why discuss things that are not going to happen. But even so. If Apple did license their OS to Dell, which is essentially giving it to every PC, I think your reasoning is flawed. Apple stands to gain more in sales in the end by owning the whole package. Everybody knows the Tortoise beats the Hare every time.
I wasn't singling myself out per se...I was rather using my thoughts as representative of people who have entertained the possibility of Apple licensing OS X to dell -- but still not declaring its probability or likely hood seriously.
Originally posted by ZachPruckowski
That would succeed in selling lots of copies of OS X at $80ish, and lots of copies of $129 iLife to consumers. Apple would rather sell you the whole computer and make fewer sales, because one of the large issues with Windows is that is has to support every peripheral, motherboard, x86 processor, video card, networking card, etc released up to 2-3 years previous to the OS's launch.
That's sort of what Apple would face, since Dell would chafe at the idea of Apple dictating only a narrow range of video cards and motherboards. Now Apple can obviously set some limits (like requiring SSE3 or PCI-E, and dropping a few things, like PS/2), but any Apple OS has to work with everything that comes with the computer it comes on.
The idea of licensing Mac OS X to Dell ins't to increase Mac OS X sales or iLife and iWork sales in the future. The idea would be to decrease Window's marketshare. When you signifficantly increase the market share in general, you also signifficantly increase the market in share for Apple due to the domino effect. People start buying from dell leading to more hype, popularity, gaming and business market, thus higher sales, and thus Apple's hardware marketshare goes up as well -- espessially if they maintain their innovation (over "beige boxed" alternatives like Dell.
Now regardless of that argument above, I concede that there are certainly other factors which would effect a choice by Apple to (or not to) license Mac OS X to dell. The first of which is the overall user experience. With dell selling potentially subpar hardware with Mac OS X -- or not nessesarily subpar but just not integrated and seemless, this would weaken Apple's prestige. Another factor would be control. If Apple releases a product or software, they can easily control their hardware range to match that product.
On a seperate note, consider Apple's licensing of the iPod to HP. Apple controled HP's pricing, etc. Apple could do the same for dell with dells own computers with Apple on them -- OR -- even better: Apple could license its own computers (i.e. MacBook) to dell to be either retailed through dell branded by Apple or retailed through dell branded by apple+dell. This would be usefull because of dell's outeach to a large portion of the PC market. Plus dell could pre-install Windows on the Dell+Apple models.
My 2¢
Apple has two enemies: Dell/HP/Lenovo/Gateway/etc. and Microsoft. I could see Apple allying against Microsoft only if they thought they could still sell hardware without the major SW perks, and only if they thought they could maintain the Mac and OS X brand names with a good user experience on the OEM computers.
Just to throw an idea out there: What if Apple only licenses Tiger (and not Leopard) to run on Dells? If Leopard is as good as people seem to be hoping, it's still plenty of incentive to get a Mac, but having a larger OS X marketshare will still attract developers. That way, Apple can maintain it's strategy of having an integrated experience and of having the software as a "lure" to it's hardware.
My thinking is all based on my thinking that once Windows marketshare drops below 80% on the desktop in homes and businesses, the game changes. When Windows has over 75-80 percent, Mac sales are irrelevant. But porting becomes more likely when Mac sales could add a serious bit to a company's bottom line.
ick ick ick !
Zon
1. I see Apple holding back for some reason on the one hand, seeing as it's not doing all it can to become the predominant OS, namely licensing it, despite many baby steps in this direction. Many chalk it up to it being a risk for hardware sales.
2. I also see it not doing all it can to eat Dell in the hardware vein, since a low-end solution would eat at both Dell and iMac sales. And yet there's Boot Camp.
So what are they trying to do? SJ has said many times that the advantage to having 5% market share is that you only need 5% to double it.
But I think that's facetious. Most faithfuls believe that there's an ace up Apple's sleeve, a golden axe that will fall and resolve this paradox. Perhaps Apple will try both at once, making the best, fastest Windows hardware and at the same time offering the best alternative OS. Of course, many feel that this could even reduce the market share of the OS.
So there's a piece of the puzzle missing.
--B
YOUR LOOKING FOR ANYTHING TO CATCH A RIDE ON APPLES GOOD FORTUNE, BUT WHAT YOU WANT IS FOR APPLE TO HAND YOU THEIR RIDE TO FORTUNE. PATHETIC.
Originally posted by onlooker
Not going to happen. I think it's going to take some serious developers to get Mac OS Leopard to run on a PC. If they can't even get Tiger running up to spec on one yet, they are not going to have much luck with Leopard.
My 2¢
The only great thing Apple has ever made is Mac OS X. They've ditched the shitty hardware for the worthwhile x86 architecture, albeit overpriced installations of it.
Originally posted by Placebo
The only great thing Apple has ever made is Mac OS X. They've ditched the shitty hardware for the worthwhile x86 architecture, albeit overpriced installations of it.
List of Apple's unsung achievements part one.
Many people have said Apple would release a tablet mac. They haven't.
There is no point in saying Apple will or will not license Mac OS X to Dell. We all know Dell wants it -- but does Apple? That is the point of the thread. Would Apple benifit from licensing Mac OS X to Dell, and what would they hope to gain by doing so?
Originally posted by icfireball
Many people have said Apple would release a tablet mac. They haven't.
Hey! Nobody ever said when.
Originally posted by Placebo
The only great thing Apple has ever made is Mac OS X. They've ditched the shitty hardware for the worthwhile x86 architecture, albeit overpriced installations of it.
Placebo. We all know you can do better posts than this.
Originally posted by onlooker
Hey! Nobody ever said when.
When hell freezer over.
But then again... hell has freezen over before (e.g. iTunes on Windows)
Originally posted by shady104
well im far from an expert but if apple can get windows to work on a mac via boot camp cant dell get OSX to work on a dell through there own bootcamp type program?
Not legally without Apple's OK. Microsoft doesn't mind Apples running Windows, because it's an extra $200 a copy for them, but Apple minds Dell running OS X, because then it loses hardware sales. So if Dell went ahead and did it anyways, they'd face a huge lawsuit from Apple, as would every one who buys one.