Apple doesn't think like that. The iMac is for the consumer, the Mac Mini is for a person / swicther on a budget. The MacPro is more a more advanced user who like to configure to his own preferences, usually the power user. The lappies are for people who need their computers on the go, it's that simple. I wouldn't hold my breath if I was you, cause you'll be holding and holding. The whole reason for the all-in-one computer, the iMac, is simple, it's called simplicity. Apple thinks if they make a computer that is slim, sexy and does what most want straight out of the box, then why mess with that - that's how they think, I think.
Apple doesn't think like that. The iMac is for the consumer, the Mac Mini is for a person / swicther on a budget. The MacPro is more a more advanced user who like to configure to his own preferences, usually the power user. The lappies are for people who need their computers on the go, it's that simple. I wouldn't hold my breath if I was you, cause you'll be holding and holding. The whole reason for the all-in-one computer, the iMac, is simple, it's called simplicity. Apple thinks if they make a computer that is slim, sexy and does what most want straight out of the box, then why mess with that - that's how they think, I think.
Like I've said before Apple has the right to that philosophy, but since Apple is the only game in town if you want Mac OS X, it pretty frustrating to the many who not share it. The PC users who have a more tradational view stay PC users and the more traditional Mac users stay disgruntled.
Wrong, the real difference between Apple and Dell is Mac OS X. One may be more stylish but style isn't the number 1 selling point of a Mac. Mac OS X is, and these days running Windows too seems to come it at number 2.
Sebastian
Yes but if you read what I wrote I was talking about a Dell running OS X! As they'd like to. If you have a Dell running OS X and a Mac running OS X what would the real differences be? One could be a consumer tower vs. a AIO but the main draw of a Mac, aside from OS X and iLife, is the form factor and industrial design. Heck, Apple/Jobs talk and worry about that all the time. Everything from the color of the plastic to the location of ports is discussed plus a milion other things I'm sure. No other computer maker looks at their boxes in that sorta of detail. If Dell or some other PC maker were to start selling computers loaded with OS X Apple would hound the heck out of them from a design point of view. Of course that would defeat of purpose of Apple having a hardware partner beyond worring about a certain level of quality. Maybe that's the point. Now that I think about it I can't see Apple relinquishing that much control over the hardware. It's not in their DNA unless Jobs left the company. I can't see Apple playing well with any of the other computer makers. Can you really see them saying "here's OS X, the best OS in the world, but do what you want with the hardware." Apple/ Jobs is the brilliant, but temperamental, artist of the computer world. The Michelangelo who tells off the Pope while painting "his" Sistine chapel.
Not according to their annual report, which you should read before making such comments since its easily available.
Yes, interesting reading. I suspected that the MacBook sales were going to be strong but not that strong, they're just flying off the shelves aren't they? Where does it tell you what the margin is per product?
iPod is currently bringing in more money than their entire Macintosh portfolio combined - and iPod doesn't require people to switch from a PC in order to do so.
This is the proof of the pudding - that a single, well executed, platform independent 'closed appliance' can bring in more $ than the entire Macintosh division. And that's the Macintosh division on a particularly good year.
In total, they sold:
$7,375m worth of Macintosh (desktop and portable)
$7,676m worth of iPod alone
And by the time you add all of the other products that aren't Macintosh hardware, that figure jumps to $11,940m.
So in sales terms Macintosh accounted for only 38% of their total business. Hence the change of name I guess. 38% is still a big chunk, but the question is when will the potential market for their OS (every PC in the world) outweigh the market for their hardware?
Desktop Macintosh sales were down -3%. Portable Macintosh sales were up +43%. Wow, but not surprising when you see how the G4 processor was crippling their sales of portables. I suspect that the +43% result in the portable market is repeatable. Which barring something miraculous happening in the desktop market means that Macintosh is going to account for less than 38% of their business this year. And there's also some wow results in some of their other categories that didn't require them to develop their own computers and then try and convince PC users to switch.
iPod sales were up +69%. Other music related products and services were up a staggering +110%. Peripherals and other hardware were down at -2%. Software, service, and other sales were up at +17%.
To the untrained eye, those figures suggest that Apple should concentrate on it's music, OS and 'doesn't require the punter to move to a Mac' hardware offerings ? and then sell their OS to EVERYONE.
Macintosh is slowly sliding downhill and it's only so long before the arse falls out of the iPod market. They don't have to stop selling Macintosh hardware overnight, but IMHO the future is the OS and closed appliances like the iPhone.
Yes but if you read what I wrote I was talking about a Dell running OS X! As they'd like to. If you have a Dell running OS X and a Mac running OS X what would the real differences be? One could be a consumer tower vs. a AIO but the main draw of a Mac, aside from OS X and iLife, is the form factor and industrial design. Heck, Apple/Jobs talk and worry about that all the time. Everything from the color of the plastic to the location of ports is discussed plus a milion other things I'm sure. No other computer maker looks at their boxes in that sorta of detail. If Dell or some other PC maker were to start selling computers loaded with OS X Apple would hound the heck out of them from a design point of view. Of course that would defeat of purpose of Apple having a hardware partner beyond worring about a certain level of quality. Maybe that's the point. Now that I think about it I can't see Apple relinquishing that much control over the hardware. It's not in their DNA unless Jobs left the company. I can't see Apple playing well with any of the other computer makers. Can you really see them saying "here's OS X, the best OS in the world, but do what you want with the hardware." Apple/ Jobs is the brilliant, but temperamental, artist of the computer world. The Michelangelo who tells off the Pope while painting "his" Sistine chapel.
But in doing so, Mac OS X has become more or less prepaid R&D for Microsoft. It's also become an attempt to shape other according to Steve's will.
So in sales terms Macintosh accounted for only 38% of their total business. Hence the change of name I guess. 38% is still a big chunk, but the question is when will the potential market for their OS (every PC in the world) outweigh the market for their hardware?
Absolutely. The market for the Mac OS X operating system and Apple software is many times larger than that of Apple's own product line. Many people want things that Apple just does not offer. If you want people to buy your product, it's much easier sale to go to them than expecting them to change to meet your ideals. Microsoft figured this out two decades ago and that's probably why they outsell us 19:1.
[/quote]Desktop Macintosh sales were down -3%. Portable Macintosh sales were up +43%. Wow, but not surprising when you see how the G4 processor was crippling their sales of portables. I suspect that the +43% result in the portable market is repeatable. Which barring something miraculous happening in the desktop market means that Macintosh is going to account for less than 38% of their business this year. And there's also some wow results in some of their other categories that didn't require them to develop their own computers and then try and convince PC users to switch.[/quote]
Apple offers two useful things in the notebook segment: an affordable ultraportable notebook and a full featured notebook that is very light and easy to carry. They throw in style while their at it. On the flip side, the desktops aren't anywhere near as strong Apple offers a lot of innovation in the high end workstation market with the Mac Pro, but the iMac and Mac Mini are niche products. If the Mini was slightly larger (Apple TV size) and had a desktop hard drive. it would compare pretty well with the HP slimlines. Instead they tried to make the smallest functional computer they could and severely hampered the thing with a notebook hard drive.
As for the iMac, as a family machine, the thing is awesome. The problem is that even the GMA model (without the DVD burner) is pushing the budget for most families. Stack it up against the prosumer PC towers and it doesn't fare too well. Yes it comes, with a display, but that doesn't make up that much ground against the large number of deficiencies it has in that market.
Quote:
iPod sales were up +69%. Other music related products and services were up a staggering +110%. Peripherals and other hardware were down at -2%. Software, service, and other sales were up at +17%.
To the untrained eye, those figures suggest that Apple should concentrate on it's music, OS and 'doesn't require the punter to move to a Mac' hardware offerings – and then sell their OS to EVERYONE.
Macintosh is slowly sliding downhill and it's only so long before the arse falls out of the iPod market. They don't have to stop selling Macintosh hardware overnight, but IMHO the future is the OS and closed appliances like the iPhone.
The iPod is a very practical device with universal appeal. Most of all, buying it doesn't require to user to make sometimes difficult choices. That being said, I wouldn't bet the farm on it. Dedicated music players and extenders like AppleTV will soon be rolled into multifunction devices. Apple has a nice start with the iPhone, but ironically Apple put Motorola in an even better position with iTunes version of the RAZR and SLVR. AppleTV has potential, but it really has to be in the TVs before it will really take off.
Yes it has. They even joke about it e.g. "Redmond's starting their photocopiers".
As Messiah said, the numbers "seem" to show that now is the right time to get OS X on other systems, at least for desktops, but I just don't see Apple being willing to give up the hardware control or another company be willing to work with Apple's possible demands. Perhaps the name change does indicate that Apple is thinking about it, clearly they want to get into other markets, and keep control of the digital content market. Also, the fact that Apple was secretly working on the Intel version of OS X since the first day seems to indicate that they have a lot of secret contingency plans. They might even know who they'd approach for a OS X PC.
Yes it has. They even joke about it e.g. "Redmond's starting their photocopiers".
As Messiah said, the numbers "seem" to show that now is the right time to get OS X on other systems, at least for desktops, but I just don't see Apple being willing to give up the hardware control or another company be willing to work with Apple's possible demands. Perhaps the name change does indicate that Apple is thinking about it, clearly they want to get into other markets, and keep control of the digital content market. Also, the fact that Apple was secretly working on the Intel version of OS X since the first day seems to indicate that they have a lot of secret contingency plans. They might even know who they'd approach for a OS X PC.
Considering that the only difference in most PCs is the case, they'd have their pick.
Yes but if you read what I wrote I was talking about a Dell running OS X! As they'd like to. If you have a Dell running OS X and a Mac running OS X what would the real differences be? One could be a consumer tower vs. a AIO but the main draw of a Mac, aside from OS X and iLife, is the form factor and industrial design. Heck, Apple/Jobs talk and worry about that all the time. Everything from the color of the plastic to the location of ports is discussed plus a milion other things I'm sure. No other computer maker looks at their boxes in that sorta of detail. If Dell or some other PC maker were to start selling computers loaded with OS X Apple would hound the heck out of them from a design point of view. Of course that would defeat of purpose of Apple having a hardware partner beyond worring about a certain level of quality. Maybe that's the point. Now that I think about it I can't see Apple relinquishing that much control over the hardware. It's not in their DNA unless Jobs left the company. I can't see Apple playing well with any of the other computer makers. Can you really see them saying "here's OS X, the best OS in the world, but do what you want with the hardware." Apple/ Jobs is the brilliant, but temperamental, artist of the computer world. The Michelangelo who tells off the Pope while painting "his" Sistine chapel.
No they won't give up hardware control, and it doesn't matter how nice the hardware is if the consumer is out for a PC and see's brand SUPERCHEAP. Apple isn't going to kill their own lineup just so Dell can feel self important about licensing it. Apple is still very successful with their Mac line and as long as that continues I highly doubt they will kill it by licensing the OS because very few consumers care about the placing of a USB port on their Notebooks. Anyways, if Dell wants a decent OS that "Just Works" I'm going to have to suggest they make one themselves. If they based it off of UNIX they might be able to get some Mac OS X compatibility as well, in UNIX apps anyways.
Quote:
Originally Posted by imacFP
Yes it has. They even joke about it e.g. "Redmond's starting their photocopiers".
As Messiah said, the numbers "seem" to show that now is the right time to get OS X on other systems, at least for desktops, but I just don't see Apple being willing to give up the hardware control or another company be willing to work with Apple's possible demands. Perhaps the name change does indicate that Apple is thinking about it, clearly they want to get into other markets, and keep control of the digital content market. Also, the fact that Apple was secretly working on the Intel version of OS X since the first day seems to indicate that they have a lot of secret contingency plans. They might even know who they'd approach for a OS X PC.
The problem here is that too many people are reading too deeply into the name change. The exact reason they changed their name and dropped "Computer" from it:
It didn't make sense for the very reason you stated, they are going into other markets but they do it very slowly.
With other product lines out besides the Mac it didn't make sense to keep it, which Steve said himself on stage.
Most people called them "Apple" anyways. Hell I was more surprised when they mentioned that "Computer" was part of their corporate name which I completely forgot about, then when I heard they were dropping it.
I don't think that licensing Mac OS X to other computer makers or even spinning off the software division would hurt Mac sales very much because Apple hardware doesn't compete in the same market segment as Dell ATX boxes. Apple hardware is sold to a high-end, high-margin market segment of home and creative users. It competes mostly on aesthetic design and form factor, not on its operating system -- I doubt it if even abandoning OS X in favour of Vista would hurt Mac sales, as long as Apple kept iTunes and started selling iLife, etc. for Windows. Personally, I bought my MacBook Pro mostly because Dell and HP's offerings were clunky and badly designed, not because I had a strong preference for OS X over Vista (which had just came out at the time). Licensing Mac OS X would allow Apple to profit from the low-margin beige boxes sold largely to corporate users who would never consider buying a Mac. However, it wouldn't affect Mac sales very much because Mac users would never accept beige boxes as substitutes for genuine Macs.
I don't think that licensing Mac OS X to other computer makers or even spinning off the software division would hurt Mac sales very much because Apple hardware doesn't compete in the same market segment as Dell ATX boxes. Apple hardware is sold to a high-end, high-margin market segment of home and creative users. It competes mostly on aesthetic design and form factor, not on its operating system -- I doubt it if even abandoning OS X in favour of Vista would hurt Mac sales, as long as Apple kept iTunes and started selling iLife, etc. for Windows. Personally, I bought my MacBook Pro mostly because Dell and HP's offerings were clunky and badly designed, not because I had a strong preference for OS X over Vista (which had just came out at the time). Licensing Mac OS X would allow Apple to profit from the low-margin beige boxes sold largely to corporate users who would never consider buying a Mac. However, it wouldn't affect Mac sales very much because Mac users would never accept beige boxes as substitutes for genuine Macs.
I don't think that licensing Mac OS X to other computer makers or even spinning off the software division would hurt Mac sales very much because Apple hardware doesn't compete in the same market segment as Dell ATX boxes. Apple hardware is sold to a high-end, high-margin market segment of home and creative users. It competes mostly on aesthetic design and form factor, not on its operating system -- I doubt it if even abandoning OS X in favour of Vista would hurt Mac sales, as long as Apple kept iTunes and started selling iLife, etc. for Windows. Personally, I bought my MacBook Pro mostly because Dell and HP's offerings were clunky and badly designed, not because I had a strong preference for OS X over Vista (which had just came out at the time). Licensing Mac OS X would allow Apple to profit from the low-margin beige boxes sold largely to corporate users who would never consider buying a Mac. However, it wouldn't affect Mac sales very much because Mac users would never accept beige boxes as substitutes for genuine Macs.
I think it would hurt their sales, becuase while a lot of what you said is true, Apple mainly sells their computers to people who want Mac OS X. If I could've got a better deal out of Sony and Mac OS X, guess what, I would've bought that instead of my Macbook. The same is true for many many others.
Licensing Mac OS X would allow Apple to profit from the low-margin beige boxes sold largely to corporate users who would never consider buying a Mac. However, it wouldn't affect Mac sales very much because Mac users would never accept beige boxes as substitutes for genuine Macs.
I forgot to point out a couple of things. Apple still refuses to update the Mac Mini to this day, and as far as I know it's the worst selling of all the Mac Models. Translation: Apple isn't benefitting from it much if at all. So don't be surprised to see it dropped. They have a low end iMac anyways priced very closely to the Mac Mini anyways.
Sebastian
I think the Mac Mini will always be available, as it is intended to help someone enter the Mac world afforably plus use their existing PC monitors, keyboards, etc. For me, I use it as a living room computer/media center setup (Mac Mini, 32" HD LCD panel, Airport Extreme, EyeTV DVR, Wireless Apple KB/Mouse, iDisk). It fits nicely under my HD LCD with the Airport Extreme, and Disk storage -- clean setup.
I also have a MBP 15" as my portable computer, and sometimes use the open source program called Synergy KM to share the keyboard/mouse between the 15" and 32" screens! Love it...Long live the Mac Mini.
This will NEVER happen and thankfully so. One of the things (probably the main thing) that makes the Mac platform so outstanding is Apple's ability to control the exact hardware that the OS runs on. In this way they know exactly what the user experience will be and can eliminate most issues before the user ever sees or is bothered by them.
Agreed. I was talking with a pair of hardcore PC coders/admins at lunch the other day, and while they aren't fans of Mac on principle, one of them bought a mini and had to admit that quote, "it just worked." He was specifically referring to an expensive synthesizer he bought for XP that worked ok on XP, but Vista has literally killed both it and his sound card. But he was up and running in 10 minutes flat w/ the mini.
But they may as well quit making Macs if that happens. I don't think so.
BMW doesn't stop making cars just because of Chevy or Toyota. Different computers for different crowds. The average PC doesn't have the cutting edge design or integration of features that Apple offers. On the other hand If you want more expansion and power you can't get it from apple unless you're willing to pay workstation prices. Mac OS X, on the other hand, appeals to just about everyone.
Comments
The complete lack of towers is a big difference.
Apple doesn't think like that. The iMac is for the consumer, the Mac Mini is for a person / swicther on a budget. The MacPro is more a more advanced user who like to configure to his own preferences, usually the power user. The lappies are for people who need their computers on the go, it's that simple. I wouldn't hold my breath if I was you, cause you'll be holding and holding. The whole reason for the all-in-one computer, the iMac, is simple, it's called simplicity. Apple thinks if they make a computer that is slim, sexy and does what most want straight out of the box, then why mess with that - that's how they think, I think.
Apple doesn't think like that. The iMac is for the consumer, the Mac Mini is for a person / swicther on a budget. The MacPro is more a more advanced user who like to configure to his own preferences, usually the power user. The lappies are for people who need their computers on the go, it's that simple. I wouldn't hold my breath if I was you, cause you'll be holding and holding. The whole reason for the all-in-one computer, the iMac, is simple, it's called simplicity. Apple thinks if they make a computer that is slim, sexy and does what most want straight out of the box, then why mess with that - that's how they think, I think.
Like I've said before Apple has the right to that philosophy, but since Apple is the only game in town if you want Mac OS X, it pretty frustrating to the many who not share it. The PC users who have a more tradational view stay PC users and the more traditional Mac users stay disgruntled.
Wrong, the real difference between Apple and Dell is Mac OS X. One may be more stylish but style isn't the number 1 selling point of a Mac. Mac OS X is, and these days running Windows too seems to come it at number 2.
Sebastian
Yes but if you read what I wrote I was talking about a Dell running OS X! As they'd like to. If you have a Dell running OS X and a Mac running OS X what would the real differences be? One could be a consumer tower vs. a AIO but the main draw of a Mac, aside from OS X and iLife, is the form factor and industrial design. Heck, Apple/Jobs talk and worry about that all the time. Everything from the color of the plastic to the location of ports is discussed plus a milion other things I'm sure. No other computer maker looks at their boxes in that sorta of detail. If Dell or some other PC maker were to start selling computers loaded with OS X Apple would hound the heck out of them from a design point of view. Of course that would defeat of purpose of Apple having a hardware partner beyond worring about a certain level of quality. Maybe that's the point. Now that I think about it I can't see Apple relinquishing that much control over the hardware. It's not in their DNA unless Jobs left the company. I can't see Apple playing well with any of the other computer makers. Can you really see them saying "here's OS X, the best OS in the world, but do what you want with the hardware." Apple/ Jobs is the brilliant, but temperamental, artist of the computer world. The Michelangelo who tells off the Pope while painting "his" Sistine chapel.
Not according to their annual report, which you should read before making such comments since its easily available.
Yes, interesting reading. I suspected that the MacBook sales were going to be strong but not that strong, they're just flying off the shelves aren't they? Where does it tell you what the margin is per product?
iPod is currently bringing in more money than their entire Macintosh portfolio combined - and iPod doesn't require people to switch from a PC in order to do so.
This is the proof of the pudding - that a single, well executed, platform independent 'closed appliance' can bring in more $ than the entire Macintosh division. And that's the Macintosh division on a particularly good year.
In total, they sold:
$7,375m worth of Macintosh (desktop and portable)
$7,676m worth of iPod alone
And by the time you add all of the other products that aren't Macintosh hardware, that figure jumps to $11,940m.
So in sales terms Macintosh accounted for only 38% of their total business. Hence the change of name I guess. 38% is still a big chunk, but the question is when will the potential market for their OS (every PC in the world) outweigh the market for their hardware?
Desktop Macintosh sales were down -3%. Portable Macintosh sales were up +43%. Wow, but not surprising when you see how the G4 processor was crippling their sales of portables. I suspect that the +43% result in the portable market is repeatable. Which barring something miraculous happening in the desktop market means that Macintosh is going to account for less than 38% of their business this year. And there's also some wow results in some of their other categories that didn't require them to develop their own computers and then try and convince PC users to switch.
iPod sales were up +69%. Other music related products and services were up a staggering +110%. Peripherals and other hardware were down at -2%. Software, service, and other sales were up at +17%.
To the untrained eye, those figures suggest that Apple should concentrate on it's music, OS and 'doesn't require the punter to move to a Mac' hardware offerings ? and then sell their OS to EVERYONE.
Macintosh is slowly sliding downhill and it's only so long before the arse falls out of the iPod market. They don't have to stop selling Macintosh hardware overnight, but IMHO the future is the OS and closed appliances like the iPhone.
Yes but if you read what I wrote I was talking about a Dell running OS X! As they'd like to. If you have a Dell running OS X and a Mac running OS X what would the real differences be? One could be a consumer tower vs. a AIO but the main draw of a Mac, aside from OS X and iLife, is the form factor and industrial design. Heck, Apple/Jobs talk and worry about that all the time. Everything from the color of the plastic to the location of ports is discussed plus a milion other things I'm sure. No other computer maker looks at their boxes in that sorta of detail. If Dell or some other PC maker were to start selling computers loaded with OS X Apple would hound the heck out of them from a design point of view. Of course that would defeat of purpose of Apple having a hardware partner beyond worring about a certain level of quality. Maybe that's the point. Now that I think about it I can't see Apple relinquishing that much control over the hardware. It's not in their DNA unless Jobs left the company. I can't see Apple playing well with any of the other computer makers. Can you really see them saying "here's OS X, the best OS in the world, but do what you want with the hardware." Apple/ Jobs is the brilliant, but temperamental, artist of the computer world. The Michelangelo who tells off the Pope while painting "his" Sistine chapel.
But in doing so, Mac OS X has become more or less prepaid R&D for Microsoft. It's also become an attempt to shape other according to Steve's will.
So in sales terms Macintosh accounted for only 38% of their total business. Hence the change of name I guess. 38% is still a big chunk, but the question is when will the potential market for their OS (every PC in the world) outweigh the market for their hardware?
Absolutely. The market for the Mac OS X operating system and Apple software is many times larger than that of Apple's own product line. Many people want things that Apple just does not offer. If you want people to buy your product, it's much easier sale to go to them than expecting them to change to meet your ideals. Microsoft figured this out two decades ago and that's probably why they outsell us 19:1.
[/quote]Desktop Macintosh sales were down -3%. Portable Macintosh sales were up +43%. Wow, but not surprising when you see how the G4 processor was crippling their sales of portables. I suspect that the +43% result in the portable market is repeatable. Which barring something miraculous happening in the desktop market means that Macintosh is going to account for less than 38% of their business this year. And there's also some wow results in some of their other categories that didn't require them to develop their own computers and then try and convince PC users to switch.[/quote]
Apple offers two useful things in the notebook segment: an affordable ultraportable notebook and a full featured notebook that is very light and easy to carry. They throw in style while their at it. On the flip side, the desktops aren't anywhere near as strong Apple offers a lot of innovation in the high end workstation market with the Mac Pro, but the iMac and Mac Mini are niche products. If the Mini was slightly larger (Apple TV size) and had a desktop hard drive. it would compare pretty well with the HP slimlines. Instead they tried to make the smallest functional computer they could and severely hampered the thing with a notebook hard drive.
As for the iMac, as a family machine, the thing is awesome. The problem is that even the GMA model (without the DVD burner) is pushing the budget for most families. Stack it up against the prosumer PC towers and it doesn't fare too well. Yes it comes, with a display, but that doesn't make up that much ground against the large number of deficiencies it has in that market.
iPod sales were up +69%. Other music related products and services were up a staggering +110%. Peripherals and other hardware were down at -2%. Software, service, and other sales were up at +17%.
To the untrained eye, those figures suggest that Apple should concentrate on it's music, OS and 'doesn't require the punter to move to a Mac' hardware offerings – and then sell their OS to EVERYONE.
Macintosh is slowly sliding downhill and it's only so long before the arse falls out of the iPod market. They don't have to stop selling Macintosh hardware overnight, but IMHO the future is the OS and closed appliances like the iPhone.
The iPod is a very practical device with universal appeal. Most of all, buying it doesn't require to user to make sometimes difficult choices. That being said, I wouldn't bet the farm on it. Dedicated music players and extenders like AppleTV will soon be rolled into multifunction devices. Apple has a nice start with the iPhone, but ironically Apple put Motorola in an even better position with iTunes version of the RAZR and SLVR. AppleTV has potential, but it really has to be in the TVs before it will really take off.
As Messiah said, the numbers "seem" to show that now is the right time to get OS X on other systems, at least for desktops, but I just don't see Apple being willing to give up the hardware control or another company be willing to work with Apple's possible demands. Perhaps the name change does indicate that Apple is thinking about it, clearly they want to get into other markets, and keep control of the digital content market. Also, the fact that Apple was secretly working on the Intel version of OS X since the first day seems to indicate that they have a lot of secret contingency plans. They might even know who they'd approach for a OS X PC.
Yes it has. They even joke about it e.g. "Redmond's starting their photocopiers".
As Messiah said, the numbers "seem" to show that now is the right time to get OS X on other systems, at least for desktops, but I just don't see Apple being willing to give up the hardware control or another company be willing to work with Apple's possible demands. Perhaps the name change does indicate that Apple is thinking about it, clearly they want to get into other markets, and keep control of the digital content market. Also, the fact that Apple was secretly working on the Intel version of OS X since the first day seems to indicate that they have a lot of secret contingency plans. They might even know who they'd approach for a OS X PC.
Considering that the only difference in most PCs is the case, they'd have their pick.
Yes but if you read what I wrote I was talking about a Dell running OS X! As they'd like to. If you have a Dell running OS X and a Mac running OS X what would the real differences be? One could be a consumer tower vs. a AIO but the main draw of a Mac, aside from OS X and iLife, is the form factor and industrial design. Heck, Apple/Jobs talk and worry about that all the time. Everything from the color of the plastic to the location of ports is discussed plus a milion other things I'm sure. No other computer maker looks at their boxes in that sorta of detail. If Dell or some other PC maker were to start selling computers loaded with OS X Apple would hound the heck out of them from a design point of view. Of course that would defeat of purpose of Apple having a hardware partner beyond worring about a certain level of quality. Maybe that's the point. Now that I think about it I can't see Apple relinquishing that much control over the hardware. It's not in their DNA unless Jobs left the company. I can't see Apple playing well with any of the other computer makers. Can you really see them saying "here's OS X, the best OS in the world, but do what you want with the hardware." Apple/ Jobs is the brilliant, but temperamental, artist of the computer world. The Michelangelo who tells off the Pope while painting "his" Sistine chapel.
No they won't give up hardware control, and it doesn't matter how nice the hardware is if the consumer is out for a PC and see's brand SUPERCHEAP. Apple isn't going to kill their own lineup just so Dell can feel self important about licensing it. Apple is still very successful with their Mac line and as long as that continues I highly doubt they will kill it by licensing the OS because very few consumers care about the placing of a USB port on their Notebooks. Anyways, if Dell wants a decent OS that "Just Works" I'm going to have to suggest they make one themselves. If they based it off of UNIX they might be able to get some Mac OS X compatibility as well, in UNIX apps anyways.
Yes it has. They even joke about it e.g. "Redmond's starting their photocopiers".
As Messiah said, the numbers "seem" to show that now is the right time to get OS X on other systems, at least for desktops, but I just don't see Apple being willing to give up the hardware control or another company be willing to work with Apple's possible demands. Perhaps the name change does indicate that Apple is thinking about it, clearly they want to get into other markets, and keep control of the digital content market. Also, the fact that Apple was secretly working on the Intel version of OS X since the first day seems to indicate that they have a lot of secret contingency plans. They might even know who they'd approach for a OS X PC.
The problem here is that too many people are reading too deeply into the name change. The exact reason they changed their name and dropped "Computer" from it:
- It didn't make sense for the very reason you stated, they are going into other markets but they do it very slowly.
- With other product lines out besides the Mac it didn't make sense to keep it, which Steve said himself on stage.
- Most people called them "Apple" anyways. Hell I was more surprised when they mentioned that "Computer" was part of their corporate name which I completely forgot about, then when I heard they were dropping it.
SebastianI don't think that licensing Mac OS X to other computer makers or even spinning off the software division would hurt Mac sales very much because Apple hardware doesn't compete in the same market segment as Dell ATX boxes. Apple hardware is sold to a high-end, high-margin market segment of home and creative users. It competes mostly on aesthetic design and form factor, not on its operating system -- I doubt it if even abandoning OS X in favour of Vista would hurt Mac sales, as long as Apple kept iTunes and started selling iLife, etc. for Windows. Personally, I bought my MacBook Pro mostly because Dell and HP's offerings were clunky and badly designed, not because I had a strong preference for OS X over Vista (which had just came out at the time). Licensing Mac OS X would allow Apple to profit from the low-margin beige boxes sold largely to corporate users who would never consider buying a Mac. However, it wouldn't affect Mac sales very much because Mac users would never accept beige boxes as substitutes for genuine Macs.
Thank you.
I don't think that licensing Mac OS X to other computer makers or even spinning off the software division would hurt Mac sales very much because Apple hardware doesn't compete in the same market segment as Dell ATX boxes. Apple hardware is sold to a high-end, high-margin market segment of home and creative users. It competes mostly on aesthetic design and form factor, not on its operating system -- I doubt it if even abandoning OS X in favour of Vista would hurt Mac sales, as long as Apple kept iTunes and started selling iLife, etc. for Windows. Personally, I bought my MacBook Pro mostly because Dell and HP's offerings were clunky and badly designed, not because I had a strong preference for OS X over Vista (which had just came out at the time). Licensing Mac OS X would allow Apple to profit from the low-margin beige boxes sold largely to corporate users who would never consider buying a Mac. However, it wouldn't affect Mac sales very much because Mac users would never accept beige boxes as substitutes for genuine Macs.
I think it would hurt their sales, becuase while a lot of what you said is true, Apple mainly sells their computers to people who want Mac OS X. If I could've got a better deal out of Sony and Mac OS X, guess what, I would've bought that instead of my Macbook. The same is true for many many others.
Sebastian
Licensing Mac OS X would allow Apple to profit from the low-margin beige boxes sold largely to corporate users who would never consider buying a Mac. However, it wouldn't affect Mac sales very much because Mac users would never accept beige boxes as substitutes for genuine Macs.
you mean beige boxes like this?
I forgot to point out a couple of things. Apple still refuses to update the Mac Mini to this day, and as far as I know it's the worst selling of all the Mac Models. Translation: Apple isn't benefitting from it much if at all. So don't be surprised to see it dropped. They have a low end iMac anyways priced very closely to the Mac Mini anyways.
Sebastian
I think the Mac Mini will always be available, as it is intended to help someone enter the Mac world afforably plus use their existing PC monitors, keyboards, etc. For me, I use it as a living room computer/media center setup (Mac Mini, 32" HD LCD panel, Airport Extreme, EyeTV DVR, Wireless Apple KB/Mouse, iDisk). It fits nicely under my HD LCD with the Airport Extreme, and Disk storage -- clean setup.
I also have a MBP 15" as my portable computer, and sometimes use the open source program called Synergy KM to share the keyboard/mouse between the 15" and 32" screens! Love it...Long live the Mac Mini.
This will NEVER happen and thankfully so. One of the things (probably the main thing) that makes the Mac platform so outstanding is Apple's ability to control the exact hardware that the OS runs on. In this way they know exactly what the user experience will be and can eliminate most issues before the user ever sees or is bothered by them.
Agreed. I was talking with a pair of hardcore PC coders/admins at lunch the other day, and while they aren't fans of Mac on principle, one of them bought a mini and had to admit that quote, "it just worked." He was specifically referring to an expensive synthesizer he bought for XP that worked ok on XP, but Vista has literally killed both it and his sound card. But he was up and running in 10 minutes flat w/ the mini.
Will Apple offer OS X for PCs?
No.
No.
That's what everyone said about the Mini and the move to intel before they were announced. When Steve and Apple see a good opportunity they wise up.
That's what everyone said about the Mini and the move to intel before they were announced. When Steve and Apple see a good opportunity they wise up.
But they may as well quit making Macs if that happens. I don't think so.
But they may as well quit making Macs if that happens. I don't think so.
BMW doesn't stop making cars just because of Chevy or Toyota. Different computers for different crowds. The average PC doesn't have the cutting edge design or integration of features that Apple offers. On the other hand If you want more expansion and power you can't get it from apple unless you're willing to pay workstation prices. Mac OS X, on the other hand, appeals to just about everyone.