Newsflash. Windows isn't Apple's real competition.
Apple: Hardware Company
Microsoft: Software Company
That's interesting, Apple must hire some other company to create Mac OS X, iLife, Final Cut Pro, Aperturee, Logic Pro, QuickTime, Shake, to name a few. They must since Apple is a Hardware Company and does not compete with MS. My guess is that Mac OS X by your definition is not an Operating System hence not a competitive to Windows.
Yes, I'm being sarcastic, I know what you mean to imply is that Apple and MS aren't on the same market therefore aren't really competing with each other. But even this isn't completely true. If MS could they would take over the same market that Apple leads. They sure do try. The point you are missing is that this condition is due to a monopoly held by MS, it isn't because Apple does not want to have that market as well.
This monopoly is the sole reason Apple has been forced to do business as they have thus far, thus far being the key words here. Apple has been forced to hold tight to the Mac OS so as to keep the market they have going. This however is a condition that was forced upon Apple by a M-O-N-O-P-O-L-Y.
I'm sure Apple would and will license Mac OS X when it's the right time to do so and retain the Hardware side alive and well. There's plenty of market to do this in. The monopoly is what's stopping it. That is what you seem to not see.
Apple and Microsoft are in competition. Windows and OS X are competing. Every Mac sold is one less Win box sold. When I bought my first Mac I considered buying a Dell, I never owned either. I knew basically nothing bout Apple at the time. I went with Apple cause I heard some great reviews for the iMac and the screen looked gorgeous. Needless to say I'm glad I chose Apple, now I understand certain things I may not have if I gone with Dell. I often have wondered what mindframe I would be in now if I had chose Dell. My guess is I would have gone with Apple eventually. I'm not a designer but I appreciate great design, so yes back to my point.. Apple and Microondas are in competition.
Don't kid yourself. Many pc vendors would love to build Mac boxes. Mac users tend to buy higher level machines, not the $399 boxes that windows users only seem to buy. If you think pc vedors are rolling in the money perhaps you should look at Dell and Gateway. Hell IBM gave up and sold out. It's not as great a business as one might think.
Many would love to, but they aren't willing to pay unreasonable licensing fees for it. Apple would literally have to be licensing in the $30-$40 range for OEMs to install Mac OS X, about the same range that Microsoft licenses Windows.
Quote:
Originally Posted by iPeon
That's interesting, Apple must hire some other company to create Mac OS X, iLife, Final Cut Pro, Aperturee, Logic Pro, QuickTime, Shake, to name a few. They must since Apple is a Hardware Company and does not compete with MS. My guess is that Mac OS X by your definition is not an Operating System hence not a competitive to Windows.
Yes, I'm being sarcastic, I know what you mean to imply is that Apple and MS aren't on the same market therefore aren't really competing with each other. But even this isn't completely true. If MS could they would take over the same market that Apple leads. They sure do try. The point you are missing is that this condition is due to a monopoly held by MS, it isn't because Apple does not want to have that market as well.
This monopoly is the sole reason Apple has been forced to do business as they have thus far, thus far being the key words here. Apple has been forced to hold tight to the Mac OS so as to keep the market they have going. This however is a condition that was forced upon Apple by a M-O-N-O-P-O-L-Y.
I'm sure Apple would and will license Mac OS X when it's the right time to do so and retain the Hardware side alive and well. There's plenty of market to do this in. The monopoly is what's stopping it. That is what you seem to not see.
So that explains why when they had a chance in the 80s they completly blew it eh? Apple always built it's own hardware, and if the clone licensing has anything to say about it, it's this, don't do it again. Apple has absolutely no need whatsoever to license Mac OS X. You're mistaking them for another company that starts with an M.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ireland
Apple and Microsoft are in competition. Windows and OS X are competing. Every Mac sold is one less Win box sold. When I bought my first Mac I considered buying a Dell, I never owned either. I knew basically nothing bout Apple at the time. I went with Apple cause I heard some great reviews for the iMac and the screen looked gorgeous. Needless to say I'm glad I chose Apple, now I understand certain things I may not have if I gone with Dell. I often have wondered what mindframe I would be in now if I had chose Dell. My guess is I would have gone with Apple eventually. I'm not a designer but I appreciate great design, so yes back to my point.. Apple and Microondas are in competition.
Every Mac sold is one less Winbox sold? Well yeah, until you factor in the number of times Boot Camp has been downloaded and the number of Virtualization solutions sold. Then that number gets a bit smaller.
Wow.... I had to do a doubletake when I read your post. You have it wrong, their software is the selling point of the hardware...Sebastian
I agree. I've been waiting to buy a computer, and have chosen the iMac, with the upcoming Leopard, over the PC's that I've used since 1989. Strictly for the OS that Mac offers. There really is no other reason to spend 2 to 3 times the amount of money for a Mac as opposed to a PC.
For you there isn't a good reason because you just want a cheap Macintosh you can build yourself. For Apple the good reason is that they don't want you to build a Mac for cheap, they want to sell you one of their units and they don't want to support any more hardware then they have to to support it.
Sebastian
Why would apple have to support more hardware. all they are supporting is the motherboard. The support for other components would be handled by whichever company makes it. Just like if I buy a display for my mac mini, Apple is not responsible for hardware support for it. It seems like you are making up excuses for apple even though noone is asking/expecting you to defend them.
About competing in the operating system market: if apple are making an operating system (which they obvisously are), then logically this implies that they are competing in that market. You can live in whatever dreamland you like, but you can't argue with logic mate.
Many would love to, but they aren't willing to pay unreasonable licensing fees for it. Apple would literally have to be licensing in the $30-$40 range for OEMs to install Mac OS X, about the same range that Microsoft licenses Windows.
So that explains why when they had a chance in the 80s they completly blew it eh? Apple always built it's own hardware, and if the clone licensing has anything to say about it, it's this, don't do it again. Apple has absolutely no need whatsoever to license Mac OS X. You're mistaking them for another company that starts with an M.
Every Mac sold is one less Winbox sold? Well yeah, until you factor in the number of times Boot Camp has been downloaded and the number of Virtualization solutions sold. Then that number gets a bit smaller.
Sebastian
1)Just as an example, Michael Dell has already clearly stated that if Apple were to license osX, Dell would offer it installed on their machines. So your personal opinion on the matter seems irrelevant.
2)I'm guessing the vast majority of mac users have not bought a copy of windows to run under boot camp or virtualisation. Unless you can provide figures, your guess is as good as mine.
Why would apple have to support more hardware. all they are supporting is the motherboard. The support for other components would be handled by whichever company makes it. Just like if I buy a display for my mac mini, Apple is not responsible for hardware support for it. It seems like you are making up excuses for apple even though noone is asking/expecting you to defend them.
About competing in the operating system market: if apple are making an operating system (which they obvisously are), then logically this implies that they are competing in that market. You can live in whatever dreamland you like, but you can't argue with logic mate.
1) supporting hardware - of course they would have to support more hardware. Which motherboard would you want to use??? Apple's, they're not going to sell this to your because, as has been stated they it doesn't make them as much money as selling the whole system. How many mother boards, with different chipsets, USB chips, serial chips, etc. etc. etc. are out there for PC's???? I would guess thousands, if not more. Which few should Apple support???
2) No they aren't. They are competing in the hardware market and their operating system is a differentiator for their hardware. Apple had revenues of $19.3 billion in 2006 of which $1.3 was software sales (and some others which they don't break out). Today, without question, Apple is a hardware company. Will they change their business model in the future and become an OS vendor - possibly but not in my opinion because it would stifle their ability to innovate. Supporting thousands of combinations of legacy hardware is an amazing anchor.
No one is defending Apple that I can see, just trying to point out what they really are, as a business.
1) supporting hardware - of course they would have to support more hardware. Which motherboard would you want to use??? Apple's, they're not going to sell this to your because, as has been stated they it doesn't make them as much money as selling the whole system. How many mother boards, with different chipsets, USB chips, serial chips, etc. etc. etc. are out there for PC's???? I would guess thousands, if not more. Which few should Apple support???
That anyone actually uses anymore? Three families
1. Intel first party 900 series (Apple uses these)
2. AMD first party series (formerly ATI Radeon Express for AMD)
3. Nvidia Nforce.
SIS and VIA are practically out of the business. As I've said before, the older BIOS based PCs should not be included, only machines running Apple's EFI implementation. It retains backwards compatibility with windows while keeping everything moving and not putting undue pressure on Apple.
Quote:
2) No they aren't. They are competing in the hardware market and their operating system is a differentiator for their hardware. Apple had revenues of $19.3 billion in 2006 of which $1.3 was software sales (and some others which they don't break out). Today, without question, Apple is a hardware company. Will they change their business model in the future and become an OS vendor - possibly but not in my opinion because it would stifle their ability to innovate. Supporting thousands of combinations of legacy hardware is an amazing anchor.
No one is defending Apple that I can see, just trying to point out what they really are, as a business.
Apple's own hardware is the differentiator and it's keeping a lot of people away. You can't get Apple's style and cutting edge design from anyone else. Unfortunately on the flip side, if you want something expandable and practical without taking a second mortgage on your house, you're pretty much screwed if you want to run OSX. The iMac is not up to the task, even with the 24 incher with the 7600GT and an army of external devices. Like it or not, those "ugly little ATX boxes" are about the pinnacle of design when it comes to practicality. They're very easy to fix and upgrade.
1) supporting hardware - of course they would have to support more hardware. Which motherboard would you want to use??? Apple's, they're not going to sell this to your because, as has been stated they it doesn't make them as much money as selling the whole system. How many mother boards, with different chipsets, USB chips, serial chips, etc. etc. etc. are out there for PC's???? I would guess thousands, if not more. Which few should Apple support???
2) No they aren't. They are competing in the hardware market and their operating system is a differentiator for their hardware. Apple had revenues of $19.3 billion in 2006 of which $1.3 was software sales (and some others which they don't break out). Today, without question, Apple is a hardware company. Will they change their business model in the future and become an OS vendor - possibly but not in my opinion because it would stifle their ability to innovate. Supporting thousands of combinations of legacy hardware is an amazing anchor.
No one is defending Apple that I can see, just trying to point out what they really are, as a business.
1) Apple already make their own motherboards. I can't imagine it would be very difficult for them. It is important to understand that I know apple will not do this, but aside from the margin/profit argument I'm saying I don't think there is any good reason why they shouldn't. And I'm not someone who appreciates greediness so the margin argument doesn't hold much weight for me. I mean, so few people would buy a motherboard rather than the whole computer, that it would not hurt Apple financially in any way. They just wouldn't make any profit from it.
2) Apple make and sell and operating system > THEREFORE > they compete in the operating system market. Seems like pretty simple logic to me. If they weren't competing with microsoft then why would there be slogans/banners targeting microsoft at macworld. With your statistics what you're forgetting is that Apple hardware includes the cost of the software.
1) Apple already make their own motherboards. I can't imagine it would be very difficult for them. It is important to understand that I know apple will not do this, but aside from the margin/profit argument I'm saying I don't think there is any good reason why they shouldn't. And I'm not someone who appreciates greediness so the margin argument doesn't hold much weight for me. I mean, so few people would buy a motherboard rather than the whole computer, that it would not hurt Apple financially in any way. They just wouldn't make any profit from it [emphasis added].
2) Apple make and sell and operating system > THEREFORE > they compete in the operating system market. Seems like pretty simple logic to me. If they weren't competing with microsoft then why would there be slogans/banners targeting microsoft at macworld. With your statistics what you're forgetting is that Apple hardware includes the cost of the software.
1) The emphasized part is the point. No business (that stays alive) does something just be cause it doesn't hurt them. Its sometimes called opportunity costs. Those resources that have work to bring in no money could be better utilized elsewhere where they could bring in profits. You only do non-productive activities like that if they lead to future profits (market development)
2) Given that Apple ONLY spent $712 million on R&D last year and if you assign $100/OS with 5.3 million units(computers) sold that's ONLY $530 million in revenue from OS sales they still aren't a software company. These numbers are compared to $18,000 million in hardware sales.
We're just fortunate that Apple understands what kind of business they are
2) Given that Apple ONLY spent $712 million on R&D last year and if you assign $100/OS with 5.3 million units(computers) sold that's ONLY $530 million in revenue from OS sales they still aren't a software company. These numbers are compared to $18,000 million in hardware sales.
We're just fortunate that Apple understands what kind of business they are
Your'e looking at this too narrowly. You need to consider the installed base not the units sold in a year to determine the value of licensing OSX. Yes the market share and installed base is too small now but what about five years from now?
Your'e looking at this too narrowly. You need to consider the installed base not the units sold in a year to determine the value of licensing OSX. Yes the market share and installed base is too small now but what about five years from now?
Plus, it would be a much easier to decision to buy from Apple if OSX was a more established operating system. I look at it this way, every user that chooses OSX over windows is a win for Apple. On the same token, every users who chooses to stay with windows because of Apple's narrow hardware focus is a loss.
Your'e looking at this too narrowly. You need to consider the installed base not the units sold in a year to determine the value of licensing OSX. Yes the market share and installed base is too small now but what about five years from now?
One year ago I would have said it will never happen, Apple wont do it. Now though I've a different opinion, I think they will licence it eventually to a select few PC makers, it's just a when issue. One or two years time? Maybe under four years? Who knows..
Your'e looking at this too narrowly. You need to consider the installed base not the units sold in a year to determine the value of licensing OSX. Yes the market share and installed base is too small now but what about five years from now?
I'm not trying to look at the potential value of licensing OSX because that question if far too complex for these discussions. Apple would then truly be in direct competition with Microsoft and what would that unleash?
All I am saying is that right now Apple is a hardware company and doing very very well. All of their recent moves - ipod, iphone, ATV, etc. indicate that they consider themselves a hardware company. They are using software only to enhance the value of their hardware and carefully picking where they invest in software to do that.
There's more money in software than hardware ? and that has never been truer than today.
Apple's classic argument is that the Mac works because it's a beautiful symbiotic partnership between the hardware and the software. In the past, when Apple used proprietary hardware designs this may or may not have been true, but since Apple moved to the x86 platform, that argument is definitely no longer true, because under the skin, there are no differences whatsoever between Apple PCs and every other PC out there today. Today, Apple's only differentiator (on the hardware side) is the 'skin' itself, and technologies that include which have no other purpose other than to keep OS X Apple hardware specific.
By adopting the same processors as their competitors, Apple can no longer differentiate themselves on a price or a performance basis. I am unaware of any claims that Apple hardware is any faster than a generic PC, like for like. Likewise, regardless of how Steve spins it on stage, Apple kit is always more expensive than generic PC kit. Yes, Apple kit might very well offer better value for money, but there are few people out there that can appreciate the difference.
Apple has two choices ? it can either keep Mac OS X exclusive, and use OS X as leverage in an attempt to continue to buck the market trend and sell high margin hardware; or it can call it a day and spin off the software side of things and sell OS X to everyone under the sun and continue to develop 'appliances' like the iPod and iPhone that are OS X dependent but not host hardware dependent.
The writing is on the wall, my friends. Just because the licensing of Mac OS was scrapped before, it doesn't mean that it was a bad idea ? it just means that it was a bad idea at that time, for whatever reason. When the time is right, Apple will sell Mac OS X to everyone. Apple has already slaughtered the Sacred Cow that was PowerPC.
Boot Camp, IMHO is the clearest indicator that this will happen. Apple is simply going to fold in PC compatibility via an emulator just like it did with PPC compatibility. Steve is going to stand on stage one of these days and say that you can install OS X on your PC and continue to run all of your existing PC applications.
One year ago I would have said it will never happen, Apple wont do it. Now though I've a different opinion, I think they will licence it eventually to a select few PC makers, it's just a when issue. One or two years time? Maybe under four years? Who knows..
I think it's more and more possible. I'm not sure they'll do it, I think it will depend on hardware sales. One scenareio I can envision is licensing to select vendors, as you mention, but only for desktop units. That is an area that is declining in sales and Apple seem pretty disinterested in this segment. I could see Apple focusing all hardware on small form factor, UMPC type devices where they can charge a premium.
I'm not trying to look at the potential value of licensing OSX because that question if far too complex for these discussions. Apple would then truly be in direct competition with Microsoft and what would that unleash?
All I am saying is that right now Apple is a hardware company and doing very very well. All of their recent moves - ipod, iphone, ATV, etc. indicate that they consider themselves a hardware company. They are using software only to enhance the value of their hardware and carefully picking where they invest in software to do that.
And they're not in competition now? I agree that for now Apple is a hardware and software business. That's not what started the discussion. Some dismiss the possibility that Apple would EVER license OSX and I think these people are myopic.
And they're not in competition now? I agree that for now Apple is a hardware and software business. That's not what started the discussion. Some dismiss the possibility that Apple would EVER license OSX and I think these people are myopic.
Actually, they are not in direct competition, mostly bragging rights. Microsoft makes considerable money off of Apple's hardware business, mostly through Office. As is pointed out in these forums, ad nauseam, [sarcasm] Apple market share is insignificant [/sarcasm].
Quote:
Originally Posted by Messiah
There's more money in software than hardware – and that has never been truer than today.
I actually wonder about this. We have spent far less money on software in the last 1-2 years in my business and home than in previous periods. This is because there is so much open source available to do more and more sophisticated things. This is even progressing into the Enterprise section, although more slowly. To make money (i.e. a business) from open source you need to add value to software either through service or hardware. Even with proprietary software there will always be an open source alternative, maybe not as good, but good enough if not other value is not added. I think Apple realizes this and is positioning itself very well. Microsoft is also realizing this as evidenced by the Xbox, Zune, etc.
Comments
Newsflash. Windows isn't Apple's real competition.
Apple: Hardware Company
Microsoft: Software Company
That's interesting, Apple must hire some other company to create Mac OS X, iLife, Final Cut Pro, Aperturee, Logic Pro, QuickTime, Shake, to name a few. They must since Apple is a Hardware Company and does not compete with MS. My guess is that Mac OS X by your definition is not an Operating System hence not a competitive to Windows.
Yes, I'm being sarcastic, I know what you mean to imply is that Apple and MS aren't on the same market therefore aren't really competing with each other. But even this isn't completely true. If MS could they would take over the same market that Apple leads. They sure do try. The point you are missing is that this condition is due to a monopoly held by MS, it isn't because Apple does not want to have that market as well.
This monopoly is the sole reason Apple has been forced to do business as they have thus far, thus far being the key words here. Apple has been forced to hold tight to the Mac OS so as to keep the market they have going. This however is a condition that was forced upon Apple by a M-O-N-O-P-O-L-Y.
I'm sure Apple would and will license Mac OS X when it's the right time to do so and retain the Hardware side alive and well. There's plenty of market to do this in. The monopoly is what's stopping it. That is what you seem to not see.
Don't kid yourself. Many pc vendors would love to build Mac boxes. Mac users tend to buy higher level machines, not the $399 boxes that windows users only seem to buy. If you think pc vedors are rolling in the money perhaps you should look at Dell and Gateway. Hell IBM gave up and sold out. It's not as great a business as one might think.
Many would love to, but they aren't willing to pay unreasonable licensing fees for it. Apple would literally have to be licensing in the $30-$40 range for OEMs to install Mac OS X, about the same range that Microsoft licenses Windows.
That's interesting, Apple must hire some other company to create Mac OS X, iLife, Final Cut Pro, Aperturee, Logic Pro, QuickTime, Shake, to name a few. They must since Apple is a Hardware Company and does not compete with MS. My guess is that Mac OS X by your definition is not an Operating System hence not a competitive to Windows.
Yes, I'm being sarcastic, I know what you mean to imply is that Apple and MS aren't on the same market therefore aren't really competing with each other. But even this isn't completely true. If MS could they would take over the same market that Apple leads. They sure do try. The point you are missing is that this condition is due to a monopoly held by MS, it isn't because Apple does not want to have that market as well.
This monopoly is the sole reason Apple has been forced to do business as they have thus far, thus far being the key words here. Apple has been forced to hold tight to the Mac OS so as to keep the market they have going. This however is a condition that was forced upon Apple by a M-O-N-O-P-O-L-Y.
I'm sure Apple would and will license Mac OS X when it's the right time to do so and retain the Hardware side alive and well. There's plenty of market to do this in. The monopoly is what's stopping it. That is what you seem to not see.
So that explains why when they had a chance in the 80s they completly blew it eh? Apple always built it's own hardware, and if the clone licensing has anything to say about it, it's this, don't do it again. Apple has absolutely no need whatsoever to license Mac OS X. You're mistaking them for another company that starts with an M.
Apple and Microsoft are in competition. Windows and OS X are competing. Every Mac sold is one less Win box sold. When I bought my first Mac I considered buying a Dell, I never owned either. I knew basically nothing bout Apple at the time. I went with Apple cause I heard some great reviews for the iMac and the screen looked gorgeous. Needless to say I'm glad I chose Apple, now I understand certain things I may not have if I gone with Dell. I often have wondered what mindframe I would be in now if I had chose Dell. My guess is I would have gone with Apple eventually. I'm not a designer but I appreciate great design, so yes back to my point.. Apple and Microondas are in competition.
Every Mac sold is one less Winbox sold? Well yeah, until you factor in the number of times Boot Camp has been downloaded and the number of Virtualization solutions sold. Then that number gets a bit smaller.
Sebastian
Wow.... I had to do a doubletake when I read your post. You have it wrong, their software is the selling point of the hardware...Sebastian
I agree. I've been waiting to buy a computer, and have chosen the iMac, with the upcoming Leopard, over the PC's that I've used since 1989. Strictly for the OS that Mac offers. There really is no other reason to spend 2 to 3 times the amount of money for a Mac as opposed to a PC.
Apple would literally have to be licensing in the $30-$40 range for OEMs to install Mac OS X, about the same range that Microsoft licenses Windows.
I doubt OEMs pay that little for Vista, at least not premium and ultimate. Apple would liscence out OS... for $100 a seat.
For you there isn't a good reason because you just want a cheap Macintosh you can build yourself. For Apple the good reason is that they don't want you to build a Mac for cheap, they want to sell you one of their units and they don't want to support any more hardware then they have to to support it.
Sebastian
Why would apple have to support more hardware. all they are supporting is the motherboard. The support for other components would be handled by whichever company makes it. Just like if I buy a display for my mac mini, Apple is not responsible for hardware support for it. It seems like you are making up excuses for apple even though noone is asking/expecting you to defend them.
About competing in the operating system market: if apple are making an operating system (which they obvisously are), then logically this implies that they are competing in that market. You can live in whatever dreamland you like, but you can't argue with logic mate.
Many would love to, but they aren't willing to pay unreasonable licensing fees for it. Apple would literally have to be licensing in the $30-$40 range for OEMs to install Mac OS X, about the same range that Microsoft licenses Windows.
So that explains why when they had a chance in the 80s they completly blew it eh? Apple always built it's own hardware, and if the clone licensing has anything to say about it, it's this, don't do it again. Apple has absolutely no need whatsoever to license Mac OS X. You're mistaking them for another company that starts with an M.
Every Mac sold is one less Winbox sold? Well yeah, until you factor in the number of times Boot Camp has been downloaded and the number of Virtualization solutions sold. Then that number gets a bit smaller.
Sebastian
1)Just as an example, Michael Dell has already clearly stated that if Apple were to license osX, Dell would offer it installed on their machines. So your personal opinion on the matter seems irrelevant.
2)I'm guessing the vast majority of mac users have not bought a copy of windows to run under boot camp or virtualisation. Unless you can provide figures, your guess is as good as mine.
Why would apple have to support more hardware. all they are supporting is the motherboard. The support for other components would be handled by whichever company makes it. Just like if I buy a display for my mac mini, Apple is not responsible for hardware support for it. It seems like you are making up excuses for apple even though noone is asking/expecting you to defend them.
About competing in the operating system market: if apple are making an operating system (which they obvisously are), then logically this implies that they are competing in that market. You can live in whatever dreamland you like, but you can't argue with logic mate.
1) supporting hardware - of course they would have to support more hardware. Which motherboard would you want to use??? Apple's, they're not going to sell this to your because, as has been stated they it doesn't make them as much money as selling the whole system. How many mother boards, with different chipsets, USB chips, serial chips, etc. etc. etc. are out there for PC's???? I would guess thousands, if not more. Which few should Apple support???
2) No they aren't. They are competing in the hardware market and their operating system is a differentiator for their hardware. Apple had revenues of $19.3 billion in 2006 of which $1.3 was software sales (and some others which they don't break out). Today, without question, Apple is a hardware company. Will they change their business model in the future and become an OS vendor - possibly but not in my opinion because it would stifle their ability to innovate. Supporting thousands of combinations of legacy hardware is an amazing anchor.
No one is defending Apple that I can see, just trying to point out what they really are, as a business.
1) supporting hardware - of course they would have to support more hardware. Which motherboard would you want to use??? Apple's, they're not going to sell this to your because, as has been stated they it doesn't make them as much money as selling the whole system. How many mother boards, with different chipsets, USB chips, serial chips, etc. etc. etc. are out there for PC's???? I would guess thousands, if not more. Which few should Apple support???
That anyone actually uses anymore? Three families
1. Intel first party 900 series (Apple uses these)
2. AMD first party series (formerly ATI Radeon Express for AMD)
3. Nvidia Nforce.
SIS and VIA are practically out of the business. As I've said before, the older BIOS based PCs should not be included, only machines running Apple's EFI implementation. It retains backwards compatibility with windows while keeping everything moving and not putting undue pressure on Apple.
2) No they aren't. They are competing in the hardware market and their operating system is a differentiator for their hardware. Apple had revenues of $19.3 billion in 2006 of which $1.3 was software sales (and some others which they don't break out). Today, without question, Apple is a hardware company. Will they change their business model in the future and become an OS vendor - possibly but not in my opinion because it would stifle their ability to innovate. Supporting thousands of combinations of legacy hardware is an amazing anchor.
No one is defending Apple that I can see, just trying to point out what they really are, as a business.
Apple's own hardware is the differentiator and it's keeping a lot of people away. You can't get Apple's style and cutting edge design from anyone else. Unfortunately on the flip side, if you want something expandable and practical without taking a second mortgage on your house, you're pretty much screwed if you want to run OSX. The iMac is not up to the task, even with the 24 incher with the 7600GT and an army of external devices. Like it or not, those "ugly little ATX boxes" are about the pinnacle of design when it comes to practicality. They're very easy to fix and upgrade.
1 Today, without question, Apple is a hardware company.
Examples
iTunes
iApps
Aperature
FCP
Logic
Shake
iWork
Apple has never had as broad an array of software as they offer now.
1) supporting hardware - of course they would have to support more hardware. Which motherboard would you want to use??? Apple's, they're not going to sell this to your because, as has been stated they it doesn't make them as much money as selling the whole system. How many mother boards, with different chipsets, USB chips, serial chips, etc. etc. etc. are out there for PC's???? I would guess thousands, if not more. Which few should Apple support???
2) No they aren't. They are competing in the hardware market and their operating system is a differentiator for their hardware. Apple had revenues of $19.3 billion in 2006 of which $1.3 was software sales (and some others which they don't break out). Today, without question, Apple is a hardware company. Will they change their business model in the future and become an OS vendor - possibly but not in my opinion because it would stifle their ability to innovate. Supporting thousands of combinations of legacy hardware is an amazing anchor.
No one is defending Apple that I can see, just trying to point out what they really are, as a business.
1) Apple already make their own motherboards. I can't imagine it would be very difficult for them. It is important to understand that I know apple will not do this, but aside from the margin/profit argument I'm saying I don't think there is any good reason why they shouldn't. And I'm not someone who appreciates greediness so the margin argument doesn't hold much weight for me. I mean, so few people would buy a motherboard rather than the whole computer, that it would not hurt Apple financially in any way. They just wouldn't make any profit from it.
2) Apple make and sell and operating system > THEREFORE > they compete in the operating system market. Seems like pretty simple logic to me. If they weren't competing with microsoft then why would there be slogans/banners targeting microsoft at macworld. With your statistics what you're forgetting is that Apple hardware includes the cost of the software.
1) Apple already make their own motherboards. I can't imagine it would be very difficult for them. It is important to understand that I know apple will not do this, but aside from the margin/profit argument I'm saying I don't think there is any good reason why they shouldn't. And I'm not someone who appreciates greediness so the margin argument doesn't hold much weight for me. I mean, so few people would buy a motherboard rather than the whole computer, that it would not hurt Apple financially in any way. They just wouldn't make any profit from it [emphasis added].
2) Apple make and sell and operating system > THEREFORE > they compete in the operating system market. Seems like pretty simple logic to me. If they weren't competing with microsoft then why would there be slogans/banners targeting microsoft at macworld. With your statistics what you're forgetting is that Apple hardware includes the cost of the software.
1) The emphasized part is the point. No business (that stays alive) does something just be cause it doesn't hurt them. Its sometimes called opportunity costs. Those resources that have work to bring in no money could be better utilized elsewhere where they could bring in profits. You only do non-productive activities like that if they lead to future profits (market development)
2) Given that Apple ONLY spent $712 million on R&D last year and if you assign $100/OS with 5.3 million units(computers) sold that's ONLY $530 million in revenue from OS sales they still aren't a software company. These numbers are compared to $18,000 million in hardware sales.
We're just fortunate that Apple understands what kind of business they are
2) Given that Apple ONLY spent $712 million on R&D last year and if you assign $100/OS with 5.3 million units(computers) sold that's ONLY $530 million in revenue from OS sales they still aren't a software company. These numbers are compared to $18,000 million in hardware sales.
We're just fortunate that Apple understands what kind of business they are
Your'e looking at this too narrowly. You need to consider the installed base not the units sold in a year to determine the value of licensing OSX. Yes the market share and installed base is too small now but what about five years from now?
Your'e looking at this too narrowly. You need to consider the installed base not the units sold in a year to determine the value of licensing OSX. Yes the market share and installed base is too small now but what about five years from now?
Plus, it would be a much easier to decision to buy from Apple if OSX was a more established operating system. I look at it this way, every user that chooses OSX over windows is a win for Apple. On the same token, every users who chooses to stay with windows because of Apple's narrow hardware focus is a loss.
Your'e looking at this too narrowly. You need to consider the installed base not the units sold in a year to determine the value of licensing OSX. Yes the market share and installed base is too small now but what about five years from now?
One year ago I would have said it will never happen, Apple wont do it. Now though I've a different opinion, I think they will licence it eventually to a select few PC makers, it's just a when issue. One or two years time? Maybe under four years? Who knows..
Your'e looking at this too narrowly. You need to consider the installed base not the units sold in a year to determine the value of licensing OSX. Yes the market share and installed base is too small now but what about five years from now?
I'm not trying to look at the potential value of licensing OSX because that question if far too complex for these discussions. Apple would then truly be in direct competition with Microsoft and what would that unleash?
All I am saying is that right now Apple is a hardware company and doing very very well. All of their recent moves - ipod, iphone, ATV, etc. indicate that they consider themselves a hardware company. They are using software only to enhance the value of their hardware and carefully picking where they invest in software to do that.
Apple's classic argument is that the Mac works because it's a beautiful symbiotic partnership between the hardware and the software. In the past, when Apple used proprietary hardware designs this may or may not have been true, but since Apple moved to the x86 platform, that argument is definitely no longer true, because under the skin, there are no differences whatsoever between Apple PCs and every other PC out there today. Today, Apple's only differentiator (on the hardware side) is the 'skin' itself, and technologies that include which have no other purpose other than to keep OS X Apple hardware specific.
By adopting the same processors as their competitors, Apple can no longer differentiate themselves on a price or a performance basis. I am unaware of any claims that Apple hardware is any faster than a generic PC, like for like. Likewise, regardless of how Steve spins it on stage, Apple kit is always more expensive than generic PC kit. Yes, Apple kit might very well offer better value for money, but there are few people out there that can appreciate the difference.
Apple has two choices ? it can either keep Mac OS X exclusive, and use OS X as leverage in an attempt to continue to buck the market trend and sell high margin hardware; or it can call it a day and spin off the software side of things and sell OS X to everyone under the sun and continue to develop 'appliances' like the iPod and iPhone that are OS X dependent but not host hardware dependent.
The writing is on the wall, my friends. Just because the licensing of Mac OS was scrapped before, it doesn't mean that it was a bad idea ? it just means that it was a bad idea at that time, for whatever reason. When the time is right, Apple will sell Mac OS X to everyone. Apple has already slaughtered the Sacred Cow that was PowerPC.
Boot Camp, IMHO is the clearest indicator that this will happen. Apple is simply going to fold in PC compatibility via an emulator just like it did with PPC compatibility. Steve is going to stand on stage one of these days and say that you can install OS X on your PC and continue to run all of your existing PC applications.
One year ago I would have said it will never happen, Apple wont do it. Now though I've a different opinion, I think they will licence it eventually to a select few PC makers, it's just a when issue. One or two years time? Maybe under four years? Who knows..
I think it's more and more possible. I'm not sure they'll do it, I think it will depend on hardware sales. One scenareio I can envision is licensing to select vendors, as you mention, but only for desktop units. That is an area that is declining in sales and Apple seem pretty disinterested in this segment. I could see Apple focusing all hardware on small form factor, UMPC type devices where they can charge a premium.
I'm not trying to look at the potential value of licensing OSX because that question if far too complex for these discussions. Apple would then truly be in direct competition with Microsoft and what would that unleash?
All I am saying is that right now Apple is a hardware company and doing very very well. All of their recent moves - ipod, iphone, ATV, etc. indicate that they consider themselves a hardware company. They are using software only to enhance the value of their hardware and carefully picking where they invest in software to do that.
And they're not in competition now? I agree that for now Apple is a hardware and software business. That's not what started the discussion. Some dismiss the possibility that Apple would EVER license OSX and I think these people are myopic.
And they're not in competition now? I agree that for now Apple is a hardware and software business. That's not what started the discussion. Some dismiss the possibility that Apple would EVER license OSX and I think these people are myopic.
Actually, they are not in direct competition, mostly bragging rights. Microsoft makes considerable money off of Apple's hardware business, mostly through Office. As is pointed out in these forums, ad nauseam, [sarcasm] Apple market share is insignificant [/sarcasm].
There's more money in software than hardware – and that has never been truer than today.
I actually wonder about this. We have spent far less money on software in the last 1-2 years in my business and home than in previous periods. This is because there is so much open source available to do more and more sophisticated things. This is even progressing into the Enterprise section, although more slowly. To make money (i.e. a business) from open source you need to add value to software either through service or hardware. Even with proprietary software there will always be an open source alternative, maybe not as good, but good enough if not other value is not added. I think Apple realizes this and is positioning itself very well. Microsoft is also realizing this as evidenced by the Xbox, Zune, etc.