Why I think Apple made just one mistake in stopping Clones...
Hi,
I've just been thinking about Apple, and the days of Clones. Now, I realise that Apple is on the whole much better when they don't have to worry about cannibalising sales, etc... However, I think that cancelling to licence to Motorola was a VERY bad idea. The reason? Mot do not give a sh1t about the G4 or G5 - and seem to be going to a research team made up completely of Chimpanzees (Only have to pay in Bananas). If Mot were also manufacturing computers based around the chips that they were fabbing, surely they would have much more interest in shifting their asses?
I know its all water under the bridge now, but I am just curious about what you guys think.
Thanks,
Dave
I've just been thinking about Apple, and the days of Clones. Now, I realise that Apple is on the whole much better when they don't have to worry about cannibalising sales, etc... However, I think that cancelling to licence to Motorola was a VERY bad idea. The reason? Mot do not give a sh1t about the G4 or G5 - and seem to be going to a research team made up completely of Chimpanzees (Only have to pay in Bananas). If Mot were also manufacturing computers based around the chips that they were fabbing, surely they would have much more interest in shifting their asses?
I know its all water under the bridge now, but I am just curious about what you guys think.
Thanks,
Dave
Comments
1) Sales
Motorola would not only be getting first dibs on its own stuff, it would also be cutting Apple's existing share.
2) Complete control over the platform
Such a decisive switch to USB, FireWire, etc? No, Motorola's G3 machines that were in the pipe were PReP/CHRP. That meant PS/2, Serial, Parallel and other legacy ports being introduced to the Mac platform. it would have been hell.
3) Clones were unprofitable to even the manufacturers.
UMAX never made money on its cloning business, yet it was the last one to go. Radius was one of the first clone-makers, and it gave up...folded into UMAX. Power Computing was willingly enveloped by Apple. Daystar gave up too...
<hr></blockquote>
Of course. But Apple makes their profits from hardware sales, so if they lose those sales, they become unprofitable, no matter how much the clones help to expand the Apple marketshare. Since Apple must pay for R&D, their hardware will ALWAYS cost more than a clone-maker's hardware. Basically, in a clone situation, Apple does the R&D for the clone makers, and then the clone makers sell boxes based on Apple's R&D at razor-thin margins. The entire business model of clones is flawed.
Anyways, we're going to find out very soon that Motorola is finally getting over their snit about the clone debacle. When the G5 is introduced, it will mark the end of an era characterized by Motorola exacting their revenge on Apple for the clone wars, by purposely draggin' their asses on PPC development.
I think Windows emulation is really the only way Macs would get above 15%. Either that or the internet mutates to make OSs truly irrelevant or MS gets nailed in the courts.
You have to admit the Clone Wars were an exciting time to be a Mac fan.
When the HP/Compaq consolidation finally happens.
When IBM stops making desktop PCs.
It'll be Dell, Sony, HP and Apple all alone.
Actually, there will be a few more than that.
Dell still has no retail presence, which is good for Apple. Dell can't seem to get it's act together in shipping machines, and the people who want/need to go out and buy a computer that day can't do it.
Gateway is REALLY struggling with their computer sales. Hardly any one thinks of them any more, and a few years ago, they had a fairly good reputation as PC makers go. They still have Gateway Stores across the country, but they seem to be dwindling in numbers, and they may be gone within a year.
Sony may be a big competitor for Apple in the end, but something tells me that they aren't really that interested in the PC market. They have their small machines which cost a lot of money, but they are focussing on much larger markets. It seems to me that they have the Vaios out there for the Japanese market (which loves subnotebooks), and other than that, they aren't trying to take over the PC market. There is more money to be made for Sony with all of their other consumer devices (PS2, tvs, etc.)
Toshiba is another computer manufacturer which looks to go the way of the dodo soon. They still have some 'decent' notebooks, but nothing spectacular.
If HP and Compaq end up merging, they will have 'complete control' over the retail market for Windows PCs. Places like Best Buy will sell HPs and eMachines. If this happens, look for HP to stop giving comission for PCs that are sold. Why would they need to have comission with no other competition in the stores (except Macs in Circuit City and CompUSA). I'm not convinced at all that HP and Compaq will merge, though.
Finally, don't forget the home built PCs. I'm sure that you'll see some people decide to just build a PC. If there aren't a lot of choices for pre-built machines, this could become a popular option.
Also, I wouldn't count a few other companies out if the retail market shrinks. What if Microsoft decided to build a PC? :eek:
<strong>Hi,
I've just been thinking about Apple, and the days of Clones. Now, I realise that Apple is on the whole much better when they don't have to worry about cannibalising sales, etc... However, I think that cancelling to licence to Motorola was a VERY bad idea. The reason? Mot do not give a sh1t about the G4 or G5 - and seem to be going to a research team made up completely of Chimpanzees (Only have to pay in Bananas). If Mot were also manufacturing computers based around the chips that they were fabbing, surely they would have much more interest in shifting their asses?
I know its all water under the bridge now, but I am just curious about what you guys think.
Thanks,
Dave</strong><hr></blockquote>
Yea! your probably right! But more then that moto is so pre occupied with their own survival and return to profitability that the G4 G5 situation is not high on their priority! Their more worried about showing wall street who they can lay off next, there by bringing up the price of their pathetic performing stock!!
<strong>What Apple would have given up far outweighs what it would have gained, IMO.
1) Sales
Motorola would not only be getting first dibs on its own stuff, it would also be cutting Apple's existing share.
2) Complete control over the platform
Such a decisive switch to USB, FireWire, etc? No, Motorola's G3 machines that were in the pipe were PReP/CHRP. That meant PS/2, Serial, Parallel and other legacy ports being introduced to the Mac platform. it would have been hell.
3) Clones were unprofitable to even the manufacturers.
UMAX never made money on its cloning business, yet it was the last one to go. Radius was one of the first clone-makers, and it gave up...folded into UMAX. Power Computing was willingly enveloped by Apple. Daystar gave up too...</strong><hr></blockquote>Your wrong! Power Computing was about to build a brand new office complex and go public when Apple pulled the clone license! As far as the other clone companys go iam not sure! But why would these companys build Apple Clones if they weren't or did not think that they could make money? Lets see the clone companys build the hardware Apple works on the OS and software programs only. Hmm isn't there a company called Microsoft that follows this business model?
I think their pretty successful don't you? If Apple followed this business model 20 yrs ago they would have alot more than the 2.9 market share that they have today! Microsoft never built a computer and their OS runs 95% of the worlds computers!
One was with the origonal Mac OS
The second was with the NeXt Step (his post-apple venture).
In both cases he refused to stop building hardware. Why? Because he LOVES hardware. He's not a software guy. He's a hardware guy.
Of course chances are that if he had, then he'd be being sued right now for having a monopolly.....
Andrew