Trboyden's idea that the transition may involve virtualization has the virtue of accounting for the absence of leaks about this transition. (I.e., if customers are going to be given a free disk, that would be something that outside hardware suppliers would be unaware of.) If Apple were to bundle either Parallels or VMware's product with their OS, it would cost them say $25+ per sale. But it would make it possible for Apple to produce TV ads showing an Apple user switching from Windows to Leopard and back again at the touch of a button. (Or the tap of a screen.) They can't do that now. It would be worth a lower margin to be able to make such an appealing pitch, because they'd make it up in volume.
PS: Also, in order to ensure that virtualization works without delay and paging, they may raise the minimum amount of RAM that's in their computers (e.g., to 2G), without raising the price. That would impact their margins.
PPS: Say, you don't think they might be bundling Vista as well?!? Or instead!?!
Nonsense. The eeePC and its ilk are not in the same category as the Air. Who in their right mind, when what they want is a tiny laptop with 10" or smaller screen actually goes and gets an Air? Not many people.
I'd really like an Air. Because I want a very light notebook I can toss into my bag.
But some of the Wind-a-likes have this spec...
80Gb Hard drive (same as Air)
1.6GHz Atom (only one core)
2GB Memory (same as Air)
10" screen with huge bezel vs 13" screen with huge bezel.
1Kg weight. (Lighter than Air!
Edge-to-edge keyboard.
802.11n (same)
1/4 the price.
The Air is much prettier. But this is no slamdunk.
If OSX's market share tripled overnight, it wouldn't cost any extra to maintain OSX. But Apples revenues would go up.
That's assuming that there would be little cannabolization. I disagree with that assumption. Apple's previous clone experience resulted in significant cannabolization. Absent any other evidence, think we'd see similar results today.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Carniphage
That would always put Apple hardware at a price disadvantage because a huge OS X tax would be levied on top.
C.
Except that Apple doesn't have to share the profit with a middle man. When Dell sells a computer, they need to have enough profit margin to pay for the Vista license. Apple gets to keep it all to themselves. That's an efficiency (no middle men) that Apple has over the Windows world.
Trboyden's idea that the transition may involve virtualization has the virtue of accounting for the absence of leaks about this transition. (I.e., if customers are going to be given a free disk, that would be something that outside hardware suppliers would be unaware of.) If Apple were to bundle either Parallels or VMware's product with their OS, it would cost them say $25+ per sale. But it would make it possible for Apple to produce TV ads showing an Apple user switching from Windows to Leopard and back again at the touch of a button. (Or the tap of a screen.) They can't do that now. It would be worth a lower margin to be able to make such an appealing pitch, because they'd make it up in volume.
This is a really interesting idea. But how many more chips would it take to make every Mac a PC as well, so it could run Windows without virtualization? Of course, you'd want to keep the Windows partition thoroughly sandboxed. This wouldn't add all that much to the hardware cost, though, and it wouldn't make sense (or affect earnings that much) unless they were bundling a copy of Vista with it. If they were signing an OEM license to sell Windows, we'd know about it by now. Never Mind!
Microsoft's $10,000 bath-tub smoke and mirrors machine is hardly in a "rich market."
What makes more sense in a restaurant?: an overpriced Microsoft table that people are going to be eating off of and touching, or normal tables and waiters taking orders on the much cooler and affordable iPod touch using a simple custom app?
The Surface Computer could be mounted in the wall, or be under a transparent sheet that could be cleaned or replaced. The virtue of it is that diners could order large-size items just by tapping on pictures of them--there'd be no need for a waiter to get involved.
And the restaurant application isn't the only one. David Pogue's NYT review lists half a dozen, as does the Popular Mechanics review. These are rich markets in the sense that the buyers are large companies that would get a good return, even at $10K. That's obviously a skim-the-cream price that would come down.
I agreed with most of what you said, 5150, but this statement is not accurate. Apple promotes the use of open industry standards like AAC and MPEG-4 H.264 in iTunes. Shoot, most of Mac OS X is open - Unix, Darwin, etc. That's why Adobe's Flash and Microsoft's SilverLight proprietary runtime environments aren't on the iPhone or iPod touch and why they'll never be. They give too much control to these companies, who can then turn around and kill support for the Mac versions, or simply make them slower than the Windows versions. Flash, for instance, has only ever worked well on Windows because Adobe probably doesn't care about optimizing it for OS X. Same as the Mac versions of MS Office, though Microsoft likely has a vested interest in making Mac software that doesn't work well to promote the use of the Windows iterations, thus the Windows OS in general.
Sorry, but I think you are the one who has it wrong. The reason Apple "promotes" open standards is because it is cheaper for them than licensing third party software. It has nothing to do with Apple wanting to create an open environment; it's all about cost savings that in turn translate into larger profits. Once you slap Fairplay DRM on top of an iTunes purchase that file is essentially a proprietary format regardless of its AAC or MP4 basis.
Though the rest of what you said about surrendering control is also very valid reasoning. As for Adobe or Microsoft crippling their Mac software, I just don't buy that and it sounds more like conspiracy theory nonsense. If you make crap software, people WILL find alternatives.
You really ought to explain your points, instead of just writing assertions.
As for the clones, some of them sucked, but so did Apple hardware at the time. The clones were competing with Apple on its home PowerPC hardware. At that point in time Jobs *had* to kill off the clones because they were drinking Apple's milkshake.
Apple's hardware has never "sucked." While they were lazy and unfocused at that time, they never lost money. The computers they made were not the junk PC clones, they were simply outdated.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Carniphage
But I don't know if you have noticed, but things have changed a bit since then.
Apple is now a powerful and successful company. It makes standard commodity PC hardware like everyone else. Everyone buys their chips from the same manufacturer. Everyone gets their kit glued together in the same Chinese factories.
Apple's hardware is differentiated by much higher design standards. It can then sell the computers at a higher premium and gets a better profit margin than most.
But there are computer hardware markets that Apple does not want to go into.
Now either Apple rolls over and hands that entire sector to Microsoft. Or it permits licensees to sell OS X pre installed on their hardware.
Business, dude, is war.
When Apple was a broken and ineffective hardware manufacturer, its only choice was to cease licensing to give it's uncompetitive hardware a fighting chance.
Times have changed.
Alright, a few things here. While Apple's switch to Intel may have made cloning by rivals easier, their recent acquisition of PA Semi shows they're interested in differentiating their products through hardware again (because they are primarily a hardware company). Once custom PA Semi chips make their way into Apple's systems, PC vendors like Dell and HP will be out of luck. Also, Apple doesn't just go with what others are using right now. They pick and choose from good manufacturers that produce reliable, energy efficient components.
Meanwhile, PC hardware vendors are still selling power hungry, ugly, run of the mill desktop towers. Dell is not a good hardware vendor, nor is HP. That's why Apple's outpacing them 3 to 1. Apple has no interest in jumping on the sinking ship that is desktop PCs. Desktop Linux has a better chance there as it can run on almost anything and Linux licenses cost much less than Windows licenses
Also, as most people know, the Overpriced Mac Myth is just that, a myth. When you spec-out most Windows desktops and laptops, they end up being around the same price or more than the Mac they're competing against. Of course, those figures don't even factor in the value of a cohesive hardware-software device made by one company, which the competition can't hope to offer any time soon.
Though the rest of what you said about surrendering control is also very valid reasoning. As for Adobe or Microsoft crippling their Mac software, I just don't buy that and it sounds more like conspiracy theory nonsense. If you make crap software, people WILL find alternatives.
I don't think it's a conspiracy (well, in the case of Microsoft: yeah, I do) but it is an observed fact that the Mac versions of MS and Adobe's applications blow chunks. Whether that's deliberate, or because they can't be bothered to do any better on a platform that represents a very small portion of their sales is up for debate.
As a way of making fun of your mistake, I mischievously wrote...
"Was this OS X version 6 or OS X version 7 ? "
So then you said...
lol
Anyway...
You really ought to explain your points, instead of just writing assertions.
As for the clones, some of them sucked, but so did Apple hardware at the time. The clones were competing with Apple on its home PowerPC hardware. At that point in time Jobs *had* to kill off the clones because they were drinking Apple's milkshake.
But I don't know if you have noticed, but things have changed a bit since then.
Apple is now a powerful and successful company. It makes standard commodity PC hardware like everyone else. Everyone buys their chips from the same manufacturer. Everyone gets their kit glued together in the same Chinese factories.
Apple's hardware is differentiated by much higher design standards. It can then sell the computers at a higher premium and gets a better profit margin than most.
But there are computer hardware markets that Apple does not want to go into.
Now either Apple rolls over and hands that entire sector to Microsoft. Or it permits licensees to sell OS X pre installed on their hardware.
Business, dude, is war.
When Apple was a broken and ineffective hardware manufacturer, its only choice was to cease licensing to give it's uncompetitive hardware a fighting chance.
Apple is a much fitter company now. Microsoft is looking weak and flabby. A full-on assault on Vista couldn't be more timely. Apple would be able to cherry pick the best licensees and specify the right hardware to approve.
Times have changed.
C.
yeah oops. got me on that one.
About me backing up my assertions, well I did that several posts back, and so did others. At this point it's just meh vs meh. Instead, I bet that Apple will NOT license OSX. So...if apple don't do this, say, by the end of 2009. I win and get 10^10 e-penis points.
Oh and if Apple do start licensing OSX, you win and therefore get an e-cookie.
I am fairly sure that Apple will release a Mac Book Air with a smaller screen sometime soon and this could well be one of the product transitions being talked about. The world has started buying ultra-portables and Apple need to get on board and release on of there own.
So I predict a Mac Book Air with an 11" screen that will sell for $800 and become the first mass-market Apple Notebook, it could and should take at least 30% of the ultra-portable market by Christmas.
But I still want my new Mac Mini, or Ultra-Apple TV, or iBlue-Ray player or whatever you are going to call it. Hurry up!!!!
As a product transition (and not an altogether new product), I'm fairly certain we're looking at a multi-touch Cinema Display. The Cinema Display line hasn't seen a refresh in a while and it would be timely prior to a Snow Leopard release to have the hardware present for the software features to work.
Just my two cents.
Has anyone given any thought to the usability issues involved with this idea? Making users reach over their keyboards to touch the screen when the mouse would work just as well seems to be ... misguided.
Adding multi-touch to hand held products makes sense. Your hands are right there already, why not use them? A laptop, a tablet, ipod, iphone, sure thing. However, I do not carry my Cinema Display around with me. I don't hold it in my lap while watching television, and I don't carry it out onto the deck. Maybe I'm missing something here, but adding touch screen capabilities to the Cinema Display / iMac will create all sorts of ergonomic and usability issues that Apple should avoid.
I'm still with either all touch line-up for iPods (minus the shuffle and nano) OR the MacFolio. *snip*
The problem with this scenario... you also cannibalize your existing portable computers. If a so-called MacFolio were more akin to a WiFi/wireless enabled 'personal planner' (aka e-book) it would not directly compete with the regular portable computer line and would instead own the niche currently being carved out by Amazon and Sony.
*snip*
Even more exciting than whatever is eventually released is the creative suggestions on this thread. Great ideas popping up here.
What if the 'folio was able to access your mac for more computing power? Kind of like your own personal computing cloud. More speed, etc. Or if it could net boot a more capable version of the OS when connected to your network, but used a less heavy version when away from the parent network?
And I agree, there's some great ideas popping up around here.
Sorry, but I think you are the one who has it wrong. The reason Apple "promotes" open standards is because it is cheaper for them than licensing third party software. It has nothing to do with Apple wanting to create an open environment; it's all about cost savings that in turn translate into larger profits. Once you slap Fairplay DRM on top of an iTunes purchase that file is essentially a proprietary format regardless of its AAC or MP4 basis.
I never said Apple "wanted" to "create an open environment." They promote open standards so companies like Microsoft can't tie up media to Windows, as they've tried with Janus DRM, WMA, WMV. It's in their interest to keep things truly interoperable. Also, Apple's FairPlay was created to get the weary music studios onto the iTunes store. It can be easily removed by burning a CD of the FairPlay encrypted songs and re-importing them into iTunes.
Quote:
Originally Posted by caliminius
Though the rest of what you said about surrendering control is also very valid reasoning. As for Adobe or Microsoft crippling their Mac software, I just don't buy that and it sounds more like conspiracy theory nonsense. If you make crap software, people WILL find alternatives.
It's no conspiracy, you can see for yourself. Flash is very sluggish on Macs compared to the Windows version. Microsoft's Mac Office has always been terrible compared to the Windows suite. Whether that intentional, laziness, or a bit of both is obviously unknown; that's why I said likely.
Apple famously partnered with Microsoft to provide a competent spreadsheet app (Excel) in the mid to late 1980's that made them dependent on third party support and inadvertently helped Microsoft get the monopolistic position it holds today.
That's assuming that there would be little cannabolization. I disagree with that assumption. Apple's previous clone experience resulted in significant cannabolization. Absent any other evidence, think we'd see similar results today.
Cannibalization of Apples *hardware* would only occur if Apple's hardware was not competitive.
I'd say it is competitive, and its the unique design of the hardware which makes it so.
Saying "cannibalization would occur" is like saying Apple's hardware still isn't good enough.
Alright, a few things here. While Apple's switch to Intel may have made cloning by rivals easier, their recent acquisition of PA Semi shows they're interested in differentiating their products through hardware again (because they are primarily a hardware company). Once custom PA Semi chips make their way into Apple's systems, PC vendors like Dell and HP will be out of luck. Also, Apple doesn't just go with what others are using right now. They pick and choose from good manufacturers that produce reliable, energy efficient components.
Yes. Exactly!
If Apple have credible and differentiated hardware products, they have NOTHING WHATSOEVER TO LOSE FROM LICENSING!
Quote:
Originally Posted by wobegon
Meanwhile, PC hardware vendors are still selling power hungry, ugly, run of the mill desktop towers. Dell is not a good hardware vendor, nor is HP. That's why Apple's outpacing them 3 to 1. Apple has no interest in jumping on the sinking ship that is desktop PCs.
You are confusing two different things.
Apple's current differentiated hardware creates a floor. It's not going to put its hardware beneath that floor. There are hardware products it does not want to make. Let Apple (the hardware company) stay in the profitable place.
BUT
There is no reason not to sell *software* into that market.
There is no reason to hand that massive sector over to Microsoft without a fight.
Did you know that Microsoft actually makes money by selling the OS to computers that it does not make. Apple could do that too.
Apple could never achieve 50% hardware share. But with licensing, it could achieve a 50% OS share.
Cannibalization of Apples *hardware* would only occur if Apple's hardware was not competitive.
I'd say it is competitive, and its the unique design of the hardware which makes it so.
Saying "cannibalization would occur" is like saying Apple's hardware still isn't good enough.
C.
Please re-read my earlier posts. In the categories that Apple has offerings, we agree that they are very competitive. In the sub $1000 category, Apple is not competitive because their only offering (the mini) is too expensive for what it offers (my opinion) and they have no laptop offering. In the mini-tower category, Apple is not competitive because they have none. In the sub-notebook category, they are not competitive because they have none (I wouldn't consider the Air a sub-notebook). To think that if a clone vendor offered options in these later three categories it would not cannibalize Apple's sales in the areas that it does have offerings is, I think, a poor assumption.
I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree on the validity of the assumption.
I think it likely that no one is still reading this, but on the off chance you are: I say the MBA becomes the pro laptop. The Macbook Pro begins going for MacBook prices and is called the MacBook. The MacBook Light debuts as a tablet.
It would be a bit larger then the iPod touch and would have a built-in GPS like the iPhone. There's a reason turn-by-turn GPS navigation is not allowed for the iPhone. I suspect it is because they are partnering with someone to deliver it. If not on the iPhone, on what? This device would have a windshield mount for the car and an iMac style dock for home. In hand, it would be a great ebook reader (Kindle killer) and provide a decent sized web browser via wifi. This will create another entry point to bring regular, i.e. non-technical, consumers into the Apple fold.
If Apple have credible and differentiated hardware products, they have NOTHING WHATSOEVER TO LOSE FROM LICENSING!
You're taking my points out of context to prove your own points. No offense, but you have to consider everything I've said.
Apple most certainly would lose hardware sales by licensing Mac OS X out to third party hardware vendors. People will buy a $300 Dell instead of a $500 Mac mini, they'll buy a $1000 HP tower instead of a Mac Pro or iMac, they could even buy a $1200 Acer instead of a $1100 MacBook because "well I like the color blue more than black or white."
Quote:
Originally Posted by Carniphage
Apple's current differentiated hardware creates a floor. It's not going to put its hardware beneath that floor. There are hardware products it does not want to make. Let Apple (the hardware company) stay in the profitable place.
There is no reason to hand that massive sector over to Microsoft without a fight.
That massive sector is STAGNANT. The market is OVER-SATURATED by crummy desktop tower PCs. Apple has NO INTEREST IN REVIVING THAT MARKET. All but the Mac Pro are basically running on laptop hardware. Mobile platforms are the future and are profitable. Apple doesn't jump into established markets like Microsoft and try to dominate. They release products in emerging markets with competition they can easily trounce, like they have with the iPhone, like they did with the iPod.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Carniphage
Apple could never achieve 50% hardware share. But with licensing, it could achieve a 50% OS share.
It's funny, Steve Jobs noted either in an interview or during a keynote that Apple will likely never reach 50% parity with Windows PCs. I believe he said not even 30%. He knows they don't need to take on the insurmountable global PC desktop install base. Apple is dominant in the entertainment creation industry, are doing great in the education market, and are aiming to get a good portion of the CONSUMER MARKET, the cream of the crop. They are on their way to displacing RIM's established BlackBerry with their iPhone that's hardly been out a year.
Comments
PS: Also, in order to ensure that virtualization works without delay and paging, they may raise the minimum amount of RAM that's in their computers (e.g., to 2G), without raising the price. That would impact their margins.
PPS: Say, you don't think they might be bundling Vista as well?!? Or instead!?!
Nonsense. The eeePC and its ilk are not in the same category as the Air. Who in their right mind, when what they want is a tiny laptop with 10" or smaller screen actually goes and gets an Air? Not many people.
I'd really like an Air. Because I want a very light notebook I can toss into my bag.
But some of the Wind-a-likes have this spec...
80Gb Hard drive (same as Air)
1.6GHz Atom (only one core)
2GB Memory (same as Air)
10" screen with huge bezel vs 13" screen with huge bezel.
1Kg weight. (Lighter than Air!
Edge-to-edge keyboard.
802.11n (same)
1/4 the price.
The Air is much prettier. But this is no slamdunk.
C.
If OSX's market share tripled overnight, it wouldn't cost any extra to maintain OSX. But Apples revenues would go up.
That's assuming that there would be little cannabolization. I disagree with that assumption. Apple's previous clone experience resulted in significant cannabolization. Absent any other evidence, think we'd see similar results today.
That would always put Apple hardware at a price disadvantage because a huge OS X tax would be levied on top.
C.
Except that Apple doesn't have to share the profit with a middle man. When Dell sells a computer, they need to have enough profit margin to pay for the Vista license. Apple gets to keep it all to themselves. That's an efficiency (no middle men) that Apple has over the Windows world.
Trboyden's idea that the transition may involve virtualization has the virtue of accounting for the absence of leaks about this transition. (I.e., if customers are going to be given a free disk, that would be something that outside hardware suppliers would be unaware of.) If Apple were to bundle either Parallels or VMware's product with their OS, it would cost them say $25+ per sale. But it would make it possible for Apple to produce TV ads showing an Apple user switching from Windows to Leopard and back again at the touch of a button. (Or the tap of a screen.) They can't do that now. It would be worth a lower margin to be able to make such an appealing pitch, because they'd make it up in volume.
This is a really interesting idea. But how many more chips would it take to make every Mac a PC as well, so it could run Windows without virtualization? Of course, you'd want to keep the Windows partition thoroughly sandboxed. This wouldn't add all that much to the hardware cost, though, and it wouldn't make sense (or affect earnings that much) unless they were bundling a copy of Vista with it. If they were signing an OEM license to sell Windows, we'd know about it by now. Never Mind!
Microsoft's $10,000 bath-tub smoke and mirrors machine is hardly in a "rich market."
What makes more sense in a restaurant?: an overpriced Microsoft table that people are going to be eating off of and touching, or normal tables and waiters taking orders on the much cooler and affordable iPod touch using a simple custom app?
The Surface Computer could be mounted in the wall, or be under a transparent sheet that could be cleaned or replaced. The virtue of it is that diners could order large-size items just by tapping on pictures of them--there'd be no need for a waiter to get involved.
And the restaurant application isn't the only one. David Pogue's NYT review lists half a dozen, as does the Popular Mechanics review. These are rich markets in the sense that the buyers are large companies that would get a good return, even at $10K. That's obviously a skim-the-cream price that would come down.
I agreed with most of what you said, 5150, but this statement is not accurate. Apple promotes the use of open industry standards like AAC and MPEG-4 H.264 in iTunes. Shoot, most of Mac OS X is open - Unix, Darwin, etc. That's why Adobe's Flash and Microsoft's SilverLight proprietary runtime environments aren't on the iPhone or iPod touch and why they'll never be. They give too much control to these companies, who can then turn around and kill support for the Mac versions, or simply make them slower than the Windows versions. Flash, for instance, has only ever worked well on Windows because Adobe probably doesn't care about optimizing it for OS X. Same as the Mac versions of MS Office, though Microsoft likely has a vested interest in making Mac software that doesn't work well to promote the use of the Windows iterations, thus the Windows OS in general.
Sorry, but I think you are the one who has it wrong. The reason Apple "promotes" open standards is because it is cheaper for them than licensing third party software. It has nothing to do with Apple wanting to create an open environment; it's all about cost savings that in turn translate into larger profits. Once you slap Fairplay DRM on top of an iTunes purchase that file is essentially a proprietary format regardless of its AAC or MP4 basis.
Though the rest of what you said about surrendering control is also very valid reasoning. As for Adobe or Microsoft crippling their Mac software, I just don't buy that and it sounds more like conspiracy theory nonsense. If you make crap software, people WILL find alternatives.
You really ought to explain your points, instead of just writing assertions.
As for the clones, some of them sucked, but so did Apple hardware at the time. The clones were competing with Apple on its home PowerPC hardware. At that point in time Jobs *had* to kill off the clones because they were drinking Apple's milkshake.
Apple's hardware has never "sucked." While they were lazy and unfocused at that time, they never lost money. The computers they made were not the junk PC clones, they were simply outdated.
But I don't know if you have noticed, but things have changed a bit since then.
Apple is now a powerful and successful company. It makes standard commodity PC hardware like everyone else. Everyone buys their chips from the same manufacturer. Everyone gets their kit glued together in the same Chinese factories.
Apple's hardware is differentiated by much higher design standards. It can then sell the computers at a higher premium and gets a better profit margin than most.
But there are computer hardware markets that Apple does not want to go into.
Now either Apple rolls over and hands that entire sector to Microsoft. Or it permits licensees to sell OS X pre installed on their hardware.
Business, dude, is war.
When Apple was a broken and ineffective hardware manufacturer, its only choice was to cease licensing to give it's uncompetitive hardware a fighting chance.
Times have changed.
Alright, a few things here. While Apple's switch to Intel may have made cloning by rivals easier, their recent acquisition of PA Semi shows they're interested in differentiating their products through hardware again (because they are primarily a hardware company). Once custom PA Semi chips make their way into Apple's systems, PC vendors like Dell and HP will be out of luck. Also, Apple doesn't just go with what others are using right now. They pick and choose from good manufacturers that produce reliable, energy efficient components.
Meanwhile, PC hardware vendors are still selling power hungry, ugly, run of the mill desktop towers. Dell is not a good hardware vendor, nor is HP. That's why Apple's outpacing them 3 to 1. Apple has no interest in jumping on the sinking ship that is desktop PCs. Desktop Linux has a better chance there as it can run on almost anything and Linux licenses cost much less than Windows licenses
Also, as most people know, the Overpriced Mac Myth is just that, a myth. When you spec-out most Windows desktops and laptops, they end up being around the same price or more than the Mac they're competing against. Of course, those figures don't even factor in the value of a cohesive hardware-software device made by one company, which the competition can't hope to offer any time soon.
Though the rest of what you said about surrendering control is also very valid reasoning. As for Adobe or Microsoft crippling their Mac software, I just don't buy that and it sounds more like conspiracy theory nonsense. If you make crap software, people WILL find alternatives.
I don't think it's a conspiracy (well, in the case of Microsoft: yeah, I do) but it is an observed fact that the Mac versions of MS and Adobe's applications blow chunks. Whether that's deliberate, or because they can't be bothered to do any better on a platform that represents a very small portion of their sales is up for debate.
As a way of making fun of your mistake, I mischievously wrote...
"Was this OS X version 6 or OS X version 7 ? "
So then you said...
lol
Anyway...
You really ought to explain your points, instead of just writing assertions.
As for the clones, some of them sucked, but so did Apple hardware at the time. The clones were competing with Apple on its home PowerPC hardware. At that point in time Jobs *had* to kill off the clones because they were drinking Apple's milkshake.
But I don't know if you have noticed, but things have changed a bit since then.
Apple is now a powerful and successful company. It makes standard commodity PC hardware like everyone else. Everyone buys their chips from the same manufacturer. Everyone gets their kit glued together in the same Chinese factories.
Apple's hardware is differentiated by much higher design standards. It can then sell the computers at a higher premium and gets a better profit margin than most.
But there are computer hardware markets that Apple does not want to go into.
Now either Apple rolls over and hands that entire sector to Microsoft. Or it permits licensees to sell OS X pre installed on their hardware.
Business, dude, is war.
When Apple was a broken and ineffective hardware manufacturer, its only choice was to cease licensing to give it's uncompetitive hardware a fighting chance.
Apple is a much fitter company now. Microsoft is looking weak and flabby. A full-on assault on Vista couldn't be more timely. Apple would be able to cherry pick the best licensees and specify the right hardware to approve.
Times have changed.
C.
yeah oops. got me on that one.
About me backing up my assertions, well I did that several posts back, and so did others. At this point it's just meh vs meh. Instead, I bet that Apple will NOT license OSX. So...if apple don't do this, say, by the end of 2009. I win and get 10^10 e-penis points.
Oh and if Apple do start licensing OSX, you win and therefore get an e-cookie.
So I predict a Mac Book Air with an 11" screen that will sell for $800 and become the first mass-market Apple Notebook, it could and should take at least 30% of the ultra-portable market by Christmas.
But I still want my new Mac Mini, or Ultra-Apple TV, or iBlue-Ray player or whatever you are going to call it. Hurry up!!!!
As a product transition (and not an altogether new product), I'm fairly certain we're looking at a multi-touch Cinema Display. The Cinema Display line hasn't seen a refresh in a while and it would be timely prior to a Snow Leopard release to have the hardware present for the software features to work.
Just my two cents.
Has anyone given any thought to the usability issues involved with this idea? Making users reach over their keyboards to touch the screen when the mouse would work just as well seems to be ... misguided.
Adding multi-touch to hand held products makes sense. Your hands are right there already, why not use them? A laptop, a tablet, ipod, iphone, sure thing. However, I do not carry my Cinema Display around with me. I don't hold it in my lap while watching television, and I don't carry it out onto the deck. Maybe I'm missing something here, but adding touch screen capabilities to the Cinema Display / iMac will create all sorts of ergonomic and usability issues that Apple should avoid.
I'm still with either all touch line-up for iPods (minus the shuffle and nano) OR the MacFolio. *snip*
The problem with this scenario... you also cannibalize your existing portable computers. If a so-called MacFolio were more akin to a WiFi/wireless enabled 'personal planner' (aka e-book) it would not directly compete with the regular portable computer line and would instead own the niche currently being carved out by Amazon and Sony.
*snip*
Even more exciting than whatever is eventually released is the creative suggestions on this thread. Great ideas popping up here.
What if the 'folio was able to access your mac for more computing power? Kind of like your own personal computing cloud. More speed, etc. Or if it could net boot a more capable version of the OS when connected to your network, but used a less heavy version when away from the parent network?
And I agree, there's some great ideas popping up around here.
Sorry, but I think you are the one who has it wrong. The reason Apple "promotes" open standards is because it is cheaper for them than licensing third party software. It has nothing to do with Apple wanting to create an open environment; it's all about cost savings that in turn translate into larger profits. Once you slap Fairplay DRM on top of an iTunes purchase that file is essentially a proprietary format regardless of its AAC or MP4 basis.
I never said Apple "wanted" to "create an open environment." They promote open standards so companies like Microsoft can't tie up media to Windows, as they've tried with Janus DRM, WMA, WMV. It's in their interest to keep things truly interoperable. Also, Apple's FairPlay was created to get the weary music studios onto the iTunes store. It can be easily removed by burning a CD of the FairPlay encrypted songs and re-importing them into iTunes.
Though the rest of what you said about surrendering control is also very valid reasoning. As for Adobe or Microsoft crippling their Mac software, I just don't buy that and it sounds more like conspiracy theory nonsense. If you make crap software, people WILL find alternatives.
It's no conspiracy, you can see for yourself. Flash is very sluggish on Macs compared to the Windows version. Microsoft's Mac Office has always been terrible compared to the Windows suite. Whether that intentional, laziness, or a bit of both is obviously unknown; that's why I said likely.
Apple famously partnered with Microsoft to provide a competent spreadsheet app (Excel) in the mid to late 1980's that made them dependent on third party support and inadvertently helped Microsoft get the monopolistic position it holds today.
Here's an article on the subject:
http://www.roughlydrafted.com/2007/0...fice-monopoly/
That's assuming that there would be little cannabolization. I disagree with that assumption. Apple's previous clone experience resulted in significant cannabolization. Absent any other evidence, think we'd see similar results today.
Cannibalization of Apples *hardware* would only occur if Apple's hardware was not competitive.
I'd say it is competitive, and its the unique design of the hardware which makes it so.
Saying "cannibalization would occur" is like saying Apple's hardware still isn't good enough.
C.
Alright, a few things here. While Apple's switch to Intel may have made cloning by rivals easier, their recent acquisition of PA Semi shows they're interested in differentiating their products through hardware again (because they are primarily a hardware company). Once custom PA Semi chips make their way into Apple's systems, PC vendors like Dell and HP will be out of luck. Also, Apple doesn't just go with what others are using right now. They pick and choose from good manufacturers that produce reliable, energy efficient components.
Yes. Exactly!
If Apple have credible and differentiated hardware products, they have NOTHING WHATSOEVER TO LOSE FROM LICENSING!
Meanwhile, PC hardware vendors are still selling power hungry, ugly, run of the mill desktop towers. Dell is not a good hardware vendor, nor is HP. That's why Apple's outpacing them 3 to 1. Apple has no interest in jumping on the sinking ship that is desktop PCs.
You are confusing two different things.
Apple's current differentiated hardware creates a floor. It's not going to put its hardware beneath that floor. There are hardware products it does not want to make. Let Apple (the hardware company) stay in the profitable place.
BUT
There is no reason not to sell *software* into that market.
There is no reason to hand that massive sector over to Microsoft without a fight.
Did you know that Microsoft actually makes money by selling the OS to computers that it does not make. Apple could do that too.
Apple could never achieve 50% hardware share. But with licensing, it could achieve a 50% OS share.
C.
Cannibalization of Apples *hardware* would only occur if Apple's hardware was not competitive.
I'd say it is competitive, and its the unique design of the hardware which makes it so.
Saying "cannibalization would occur" is like saying Apple's hardware still isn't good enough.
C.
Please re-read my earlier posts. In the categories that Apple has offerings, we agree that they are very competitive. In the sub $1000 category, Apple is not competitive because their only offering (the mini) is too expensive for what it offers (my opinion) and they have no laptop offering. In the mini-tower category, Apple is not competitive because they have none. In the sub-notebook category, they are not competitive because they have none (I wouldn't consider the Air a sub-notebook). To think that if a clone vendor offered options in these later three categories it would not cannibalize Apple's sales in the areas that it does have offerings is, I think, a poor assumption.
I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree on the validity of the assumption.
It would be a bit larger then the iPod touch and would have a built-in GPS like the iPhone. There's a reason turn-by-turn GPS navigation is not allowed for the iPhone. I suspect it is because they are partnering with someone to deliver it. If not on the iPhone, on what? This device would have a windshield mount for the car and an iMac style dock for home. In hand, it would be a great ebook reader (Kindle killer) and provide a decent sized web browser via wifi. This will create another entry point to bring regular, i.e. non-technical, consumers into the Apple fold.
Yes. Exactly!
If Apple have credible and differentiated hardware products, they have NOTHING WHATSOEVER TO LOSE FROM LICENSING!
You're taking my points out of context to prove your own points.
Apple most certainly would lose hardware sales by licensing Mac OS X out to third party hardware vendors. People will buy a $300 Dell instead of a $500 Mac mini, they'll buy a $1000 HP tower instead of a Mac Pro or iMac, they could even buy a $1200 Acer instead of a $1100 MacBook because "well I like the color blue more than black or white."
Apple's current differentiated hardware creates a floor. It's not going to put its hardware beneath that floor. There are hardware products it does not want to make. Let Apple (the hardware company) stay in the profitable place.
There is no reason to hand that massive sector over to Microsoft without a fight.
That massive sector is STAGNANT. The market is OVER-SATURATED by crummy desktop tower PCs. Apple has NO INTEREST IN REVIVING THAT MARKET.
Apple could never achieve 50% hardware share. But with licensing, it could achieve a 50% OS share.
It's funny, Steve Jobs noted either in an interview or during a keynote that Apple will likely never reach 50% parity with Windows PCs. I believe he said not even 30%. He knows they don't need to take on the insurmountable global PC desktop install base. Apple is dominant in the entertainment creation industry, are doing great in the education market, and are aiming to get a good portion of the CONSUMER MARKET, the cream of the crop. They are on their way to displacing RIM's established BlackBerry with their iPhone that's hardly been out a year.