As a licensor, Apple can decide which manufacturers and which products it will issue a license for. It would only pick licensees which generated cash.
Thought Exercise:
If all the world was Windows - which Mac computers would still sell and why?
Not everyone who buys an iMac would actually prefer a beige box. You might think that is the case, but it isn't true.
Not everyone who buys a Macbook Pro would be happy with a Vaio. Reason is they are crap.
Not everyone who buys a Mac Mini for under their TV would be happy with a beige box.
In other words, if Apple sees itself as primarily a hardware manufacturer.... (which is the argument being made) ....then they ought to be able to make hardware that was so good, it would *still sell* if the OS X "advantage" were not there.
C.
I don't think you quite understand. If Apple licensed its OS to manufacturers who would then make hardware that sold for less, apple would lose Hardware revenue, which would have to be less than the Software revenue generated.
That, according to Apple's high hardware margins (and high prices) would be incredibly difficult to do without grabbing substantially more marketshare.
Licensing out to a few manufacturers is not really going to help anything, it would generate less hardware sales and probably not gain enough market share on the Software End to make the money back.
Beyond that, it goes against their image, their economic business model, and the spirit of what owning a Mac is: a computer with few options (in terms of parts) and so it lacks the multitude of drivers etc. that are a big part of Windows boxes not being compatible with all software etc.
the tagline "It just works" would no longer be sufficient.
I don't think you quite understand. If Apple licensed its OS to manufacturers who would then make hardware that sold for less, apple would lose Hardware revenue, which would have to be less than the Software revenue generated.
That, according to Apple's high hardware margins (and high prices) would be incredibly difficult to do without grabbing substantially more marketshare.
Licensing out to a few manufacturers is not really going to help anything, it would generate less hardware sales and probably not gain enough market share on the Software End to make the money back.
Beyond that, it goes against their image, their economic business model, and the spirit of what owning a Mac is: a computer with few options (in terms of parts) and so it lacks the multitude of drivers etc. that are a big part of Windows boxes not being compatible with all software etc.
the tagline "It just works" would no longer be sufficient.
Say Apple makes $400 on each iMac sold. If Apple sold OS X to Dell for $400 dollars. Dell in turn would add that price to their box causing Dell branded OS X boxes to sell for nearly what Apple Mac OS X boxes sell for.
In the end, Apple receives $400 regardless. How is this bad?
While I don't agree that Apple should license OS X, the argument Apple makes its profit on hardware may not be a good one.
Look at the gross margins of software companies and I think you will find that in most cases the software companies have a greater gross margin.
In most cases, software companies do not spend millions of dollars in R&D and then give the software away free on new computers (or sell it for only 120). The operating system business is VERY VERY different than any other kind of software company.
Say Apple makes $400 on each iMac sold. If Apple sold OS X to Dell for $400 dollars. Dell in turn would add that price to their box causing Dell branded OS X boxes to sell for nearly what Apple Mac OS X boxes sell for.
In the end, Apple receives $400 regardless. How is this bad?
wtf? If this were the case, what exactly would be the advantage to Apple or us consumers? We'd be buying macs for the same price, of a lower quality. How would that be better for Apple?
As a licensor, Apple can decide which manufacturers and which products it will issue a license for. It would only pick licensees which generated cash.
Thought Exercise:
If all the world was Windows - which Mac computers would still sell and why?
Not everyone who buys an iMac would actually prefer a beige box. You might think that is the case, but it isn't true.
Not everyone who buys a Macbook Pro would be happy with a Vaio. Reason is they are crap.
Not everyone who buys a Mac Mini for under their TV would be happy with a beige box.
In other words, if Apple sees itself as primarily a hardware manufacturer.... (which is the argument being made) ....then they ought to be able to make hardware that was so good, it would *still sell* if the OS X "advantage" were not there.
C.
I stated the fact that they make money on their hardware, not that that's what differentiates them. Obviously, what differentiates them is software as well (actually mostly software), but by tying that to their hardware they are able to have the highest margins in the industry despite not worrying about piracy or having a large business install-base.
It's the same way and more so with the iPhone... Everybody and their mama is releasing touch screen hardware now, the differentiator is the software, including the App store and iTunes. And Apple is giving that stuff away. So obviously they're making their money on the hardware, but that doesn't mean that if we started selling the Apple hardware with Google's operating system it would stand on its own against the same hardware running OS X.
Say Apple makes $400 on each iMac sold. If Apple sold OS X to Dell for $400 dollars. Dell in turn would add that price to their box causing Dell branded OS X boxes to sell for nearly what Apple Mac OS X boxes sell for.
In the end, Apple receives $400 regardless. How is this bad?
ignoring the obvious, Dell would not pay 400 dollars per box. In many cases that would be as much as the computer already costs.
I'm no economics major so i can't say definitively. I just have a sneaking suspicion that they can't play the OS X license game and expect to make more money than they are now.
The economics would more closely be tied to a large license, i.e. 100 million or some large number to offer it on all (specific?) models.
Doing that would completely kill their hardware, which they have obviously invested in bigtime (unibody).
At least that is one line of reasoning. Someone will more knowledge of economics/computer industry could probably be much better suited to this line of argument.
I think its fairly obvious Apple will NOT license out its OS any time soon, and to think otherwise is naivety.
I stated the fact that they make money on their hardware
And I stated there may be more pure profit in a single OEM pack of OSX / iLife and iWork than on a computer. If the deal is right.
Quote:
Originally Posted by meelash
Obviously, what differentiates them is software as well
This is an old argument. It goes like this...
Quote:
The *only* reason people buy Macs is to get OS X. If they could get OS X on a Dell, less Macs would be sold.
This is the "Macs are crappy but OS X keeps them selling - argument" - I have never found it very convincing.
Despite the mark-up Apple computers are still good value.
In a post OEM world the sky would not have fallen. Mac computers would *continue* to sell well, especially those lines which are well-designed and which have unique selling points. Apple does not sell beige boxes.
Selected PC Vendors would offer OS X as an alternative upgrade to Vista. The upgrade would add $150 to the price. The iLife iWork bundle would be the big selling point.
Apple would realize as much profit from the sale of the OEM pack as the sale of a Mac.
Furthermore these customers are candidates for dot Mac subscriptions, and annual subscriptions for iLife and iWork.
Further furthermore. These customers are more likely to switch to Apple Hardware if they enjoy using OS X. The iPod halo effect is real.
I think its fairly obvious Apple will NOT license out its OS any time soon, and to think otherwise is naivety.
I think it'll happen within 3 years.
Computers in the traditional sense, laptops and desktops, are increasingly becoming a commodity. Its getting harder and harder for Apple to distinguish their hardware from others in order to command a premium price.
The iPhone is the future of Apple. Its much more resistant to commoditization. As it becomes a larger and larger piece of Apple sales and profits, it'll be easier for Apple to exit the 'computer' hardware biz and just license OSX to others to make the hardware.
It'll happen sooner than people think. Look at the netbooks. Cheap commodity hardware and it's selling like gangbusters. That's Apple's weakness. The have no answer for that and that's where things are headed.
This is the "Macs are crappy but OS X keeps them selling - argument" - I have never found it very convincing.
Despite the mark-up Apple computers are still good value.
In a post OEM world the sky would not have fallen. Mac computers would *continue* to sell well, especially those lines which are well-designed and which have unique selling points. Apple does not sell beige boxes.
Maybe the reason you don't find it convincing is because you don't understand it. Apple does not "invent" hardware. The parts inside of every computer/mp3 player/iPhone are 3rd party components available to everyone. Apple's innovation is in design "making things pretty." A large component of the population couldn't care less if there computer was pretty or not, they care about the function.
The argument is not that Macs are crappy- first of all, I think it's incorrect to refer to only the hardware as a Mac- I consider the hardware+OS a complete package as does Apple. Secondly, even if we consider just the hardware, it is *better* designed, etc. but not better-enough for people to select that hardware with the inherent increase in price just for itself. How people do you know (besides Linus Torvalds ) who buy Macs and only use them with another OS?? Even for the Laptops (which offer the most significant hardware advantages over other machines) that number is very, very low.
Quote:
Selected PC Vendors would offer OS X as an alternative upgrade to Vista. The upgrade would add $150 to the price. The iLife iWork bundle would be the big selling point.
Apple would realize as much profit from the sale of the OEM pack as the sale of a Mac.
Again, this is wrong, wrong, wrong. (And that's even ignoring the cost to develop, maintain, and support an OS, which is MUCH higher than for just hardware)
Computers in the traditional sense, laptops and desktops, are increasingly becoming a commodity. Its getting harder and harder for Apple to distinguish their hardware from others in order to command a premium price.
The iPhone is the future of Apple. Its much more resistant to commoditization. As it becomes a larger and larger piece of Apple sales and profits, it'll be easier for Apple to exit the 'computer' hardware biz and just license OSX to others to make the hardware.
It'll happen sooner than people think. Look at the netbooks. Cheap commodity hardware and it's selling like gangbusters. That's Apple's weakness. The have no answer for that and that's where things are headed.
People like you have been saying "that's where things are headed" for more than a decade now, and Apple has no problem bucking the trend.
And I'm not sure you know what the word "commodity" means.
Funny you should mention the iPhone: [shout] The iphone is sold on the same model as the Mac. Hardware plus Software FTW! There will be no separation anytime sooonnnnn![/shout]
Getting back to the important business of this thread:
It seems the people who want iMacs with quad core may be in luck giving the rumors going around.
And another Tuesday has come and gone without a mini refresh.
And on the "Big Thing" front, no news, no rumors. Is it really possible that Andy Ihnatko and Ireland have better sources than Kasper and Arn?
I'm still down with the Windows API's for OS X, sorta. I mean the only argument against it is that it would be very difficult/impossible to do, because it hasn't been done before. But we could easily be overlooking something that Apple legions of programmers have not.
For example, what about if you had to purchase a copy of Windows like you currently do with Parallels and Boot Camp, but then it was installed into a "compatibility layer" instead, which operated using a CrossOver type approach. Would that allow Apple to license the Windows API to make it easier to implement, instead of having to reverse engineer everything?
As much as I hate to feed the Windows-over-OS X idea, it's worth pointing out that Apple is already a licensee of the Windows API through the patent cross-licensing deal with Redmond done in the late 90's.
As much as I hate to feed the Windows-over-OS X idea, it's worth pointing out that Apple is already a licensee of the Windows API through the patent cross-licensing deal with Redmond done in the late 90's.
Yeah, but I'm not sure what that license means.
Is doing something like CrossOver included, or only making other programs using that API.
If it were as simple as paying Windows some licensing fees, I would have thought CodeWeavers would have already done it. I kind of think that Microsoft's license probably doesn't let you use it in that way...
Is doing something like CrossOver included, or only making other programs using that API.
If it were as simple as paying Windows some licensing fees, I would have thought CodeWeavers would have already done it. I kind of think that Microsoft's license probably doesn't let you use it in that way...
The license Apple has (as far as I know, since I am not privy to the details) isn't a usual license as most people use the term - it's a cross-patent sharing. Anything MS had in its portfolio prior to date X, Apple can use free and clear, and vice versa. There are no fees, there are no stipulations like you're thinking, in the usual case of these things. It's a straight swap of IP usage licenses.
MS isn't about to license the API to anyone else, this was a "just make all the legal problems go away" move between them and Apple.
The license Apple has (as far as I know, since I am not privy to the details) isn't a usual license as most people use the term - it's a cross-patent sharing. Anything MS had in its portfolio prior to date X, Apple can use free and clear, and vice versa. There are no fees, there are no stipulations like you're thinking, in the usual case of these things. It's a straight swap of IP usage licenses.
MS isn't about to license the API to anyone else, this was a "just make all the legal problems go away" move between them and Apple.
Edit: Argh! Beaten by Frank777
Well, that's pretty hopeful, then.
Except the "prior to date X" part. What does that mean for programs that only run in Vista or Windows 7?
Comments
Which Model?
As a licensor, Apple can decide which manufacturers and which products it will issue a license for. It would only pick licensees which generated cash.
Thought Exercise:
If all the world was Windows - which Mac computers would still sell and why?
Not everyone who buys an iMac would actually prefer a beige box. You might think that is the case, but it isn't true.
Not everyone who buys a Macbook Pro would be happy with a Vaio. Reason is they are crap.
Not everyone who buys a Mac Mini for under their TV would be happy with a beige box.
In other words, if Apple sees itself as primarily a hardware manufacturer.... (which is the argument being made) ....then they ought to be able to make hardware that was so good, it would *still sell* if the OS X "advantage" were not there.
C.
I don't think you quite understand. If Apple licensed its OS to manufacturers who would then make hardware that sold for less, apple would lose Hardware revenue, which would have to be less than the Software revenue generated.
That, according to Apple's high hardware margins (and high prices) would be incredibly difficult to do without grabbing substantially more marketshare.
Licensing out to a few manufacturers is not really going to help anything, it would generate less hardware sales and probably not gain enough market share on the Software End to make the money back.
Beyond that, it goes against their image, their economic business model, and the spirit of what owning a Mac is: a computer with few options (in terms of parts) and so it lacks the multitude of drivers etc. that are a big part of Windows boxes not being compatible with all software etc.
the tagline "It just works" would no longer be sufficient.
I don't think you quite understand. If Apple licensed its OS to manufacturers who would then make hardware that sold for less, apple would lose Hardware revenue, which would have to be less than the Software revenue generated.
That, according to Apple's high hardware margins (and high prices) would be incredibly difficult to do without grabbing substantially more marketshare.
Licensing out to a few manufacturers is not really going to help anything, it would generate less hardware sales and probably not gain enough market share on the Software End to make the money back.
Beyond that, it goes against their image, their economic business model, and the spirit of what owning a Mac is: a computer with few options (in terms of parts) and so it lacks the multitude of drivers etc. that are a big part of Windows boxes not being compatible with all software etc.
the tagline "It just works" would no longer be sufficient.
Say Apple makes $400 on each iMac sold. If Apple sold OS X to Dell for $400 dollars. Dell in turn would add that price to their box causing Dell branded OS X boxes to sell for nearly what Apple Mac OS X boxes sell for.
In the end, Apple receives $400 regardless. How is this bad?
While I don't agree that Apple should license OS X, the argument Apple makes its profit on hardware may not be a good one.
Look at the gross margins of software companies and I think you will find that in most cases the software companies have a greater gross margin.
In most cases, software companies do not spend millions of dollars in R&D and then give the software away free on new computers (or sell it for only 120). The operating system business is VERY VERY different than any other kind of software company.
Say Apple makes $400 on each iMac sold. If Apple sold OS X to Dell for $400 dollars. Dell in turn would add that price to their box causing Dell branded OS X boxes to sell for nearly what Apple Mac OS X boxes sell for.
In the end, Apple receives $400 regardless. How is this bad?
wtf? If this were the case, what exactly would be the advantage to Apple or us consumers? We'd be buying macs for the same price, of a lower quality. How would that be better for Apple?
Which Model?
As a licensor, Apple can decide which manufacturers and which products it will issue a license for. It would only pick licensees which generated cash.
Thought Exercise:
If all the world was Windows - which Mac computers would still sell and why?
Not everyone who buys an iMac would actually prefer a beige box. You might think that is the case, but it isn't true.
Not everyone who buys a Macbook Pro would be happy with a Vaio. Reason is they are crap.
Not everyone who buys a Mac Mini for under their TV would be happy with a beige box.
In other words, if Apple sees itself as primarily a hardware manufacturer.... (which is the argument being made) ....then they ought to be able to make hardware that was so good, it would *still sell* if the OS X "advantage" were not there.
C.
I stated the fact that they make money on their hardware, not that that's what differentiates them. Obviously, what differentiates them is software as well (actually mostly software), but by tying that to their hardware they are able to have the highest margins in the industry despite not worrying about piracy or having a large business install-base.
It's the same way and more so with the iPhone... Everybody and their mama is releasing touch screen hardware now, the differentiator is the software, including the App store and iTunes. And Apple is giving that stuff away. So obviously they're making their money on the hardware, but that doesn't mean that if we started selling the Apple hardware with Google's operating system it would stand on its own against the same hardware running OS X.
Say Apple makes $400 on each iMac sold. If Apple sold OS X to Dell for $400 dollars. Dell in turn would add that price to their box causing Dell branded OS X boxes to sell for nearly what Apple Mac OS X boxes sell for.
In the end, Apple receives $400 regardless. How is this bad?
ignoring the obvious, Dell would not pay 400 dollars per box. In many cases that would be as much as the computer already costs.
I'm no economics major so i can't say definitively. I just have a sneaking suspicion that they can't play the OS X license game and expect to make more money than they are now.
The economics would more closely be tied to a large license, i.e. 100 million or some large number to offer it on all (specific?) models.
Doing that would completely kill their hardware, which they have obviously invested in bigtime (unibody).
At least that is one line of reasoning. Someone will more knowledge of economics/computer industry could probably be much better suited to this line of argument.
I think its fairly obvious Apple will NOT license out its OS any time soon, and to think otherwise is naivety.
So what is the big thing?
but Ireland say's it's software and it's big - if so it's gotta be OS related I reckon.
I stated the fact that they make money on their hardware
And I stated there may be more pure profit in a single OEM pack of OSX / iLife and iWork than on a computer. If the deal is right.
Obviously, what differentiates them is software as well
This is an old argument. It goes like this...
The *only* reason people buy Macs is to get OS X. If they could get OS X on a Dell, less Macs would be sold.
This is the "Macs are crappy but OS X keeps them selling - argument" - I have never found it very convincing.
Despite the mark-up Apple computers are still good value.
In a post OEM world the sky would not have fallen. Mac computers would *continue* to sell well, especially those lines which are well-designed and which have unique selling points. Apple does not sell beige boxes.
Selected PC Vendors would offer OS X as an alternative upgrade to Vista. The upgrade would add $150 to the price. The iLife iWork bundle would be the big selling point.
Apple would realize as much profit from the sale of the OEM pack as the sale of a Mac.
Furthermore these customers are candidates for dot Mac subscriptions, and annual subscriptions for iLife and iWork.
Further furthermore. These customers are more likely to switch to Apple Hardware if they enjoy using OS X. The iPod halo effect is real.
C.
I think its fairly obvious Apple will NOT license out its OS any time soon, and to think otherwise is naivety.
I think it'll happen within 3 years.
Computers in the traditional sense, laptops and desktops, are increasingly becoming a commodity. Its getting harder and harder for Apple to distinguish their hardware from others in order to command a premium price.
The iPhone is the future of Apple. Its much more resistant to commoditization. As it becomes a larger and larger piece of Apple sales and profits, it'll be easier for Apple to exit the 'computer' hardware biz and just license OSX to others to make the hardware.
It'll happen sooner than people think. Look at the netbooks. Cheap commodity hardware and it's selling like gangbusters. That's Apple's weakness. The have no answer for that and that's where things are headed.
And I stated there may be more pure profit in a single OEM pack of OSX / iLife and iWork than on a computer. If the deal is right.
You mean like the $400 that Apple makes on every iMac sold. And that was at release, over the life of the product component cost continue to decrease.
Sorry buddy, no dice.
This is an old argument. It goes like this...
This is the "Macs are crappy but OS X keeps them selling - argument" - I have never found it very convincing.
Despite the mark-up Apple computers are still good value.
In a post OEM world the sky would not have fallen. Mac computers would *continue* to sell well, especially those lines which are well-designed and which have unique selling points. Apple does not sell beige boxes.
Maybe the reason you don't find it convincing is because you don't understand it. Apple does not "invent" hardware. The parts inside of every computer/mp3 player/iPhone are 3rd party components available to everyone. Apple's innovation is in design "making things pretty." A large component of the population couldn't care less if there computer was pretty or not, they care about the function.
The argument is not that Macs are crappy- first of all, I think it's incorrect to refer to only the hardware as a Mac- I consider the hardware+OS a complete package as does Apple. Secondly, even if we consider just the hardware, it is *better* designed, etc. but not better-enough for people to select that hardware with the inherent increase in price just for itself. How people do you know (besides Linus Torvalds
Selected PC Vendors would offer OS X as an alternative upgrade to Vista. The upgrade would add $150 to the price. The iLife iWork bundle would be the big selling point.
Apple would realize as much profit from the sale of the OEM pack as the sale of a Mac.
Again, this is wrong, wrong, wrong. (And that's even ignoring the cost to develop, maintain, and support an OS, which is MUCH higher than for just hardware)
I think it'll happen within 3 years.
Computers in the traditional sense, laptops and desktops, are increasingly becoming a commodity. Its getting harder and harder for Apple to distinguish their hardware from others in order to command a premium price.
The iPhone is the future of Apple. Its much more resistant to commoditization. As it becomes a larger and larger piece of Apple sales and profits, it'll be easier for Apple to exit the 'computer' hardware biz and just license OSX to others to make the hardware.
It'll happen sooner than people think. Look at the netbooks. Cheap commodity hardware and it's selling like gangbusters. That's Apple's weakness. The have no answer for that and that's where things are headed.
People like you have been saying "that's where things are headed" for more than a decade now, and Apple has no problem bucking the trend.
And I'm not sure you know what the word "commodity" means.
Funny you should mention the iPhone: [shout] The iphone is sold on the same model as the Mac. Hardware plus Software FTW! There will be no separation anytime sooonnnnn![/shout]
It seems the people who want iMacs with quad core may be in luck giving the rumors going around.
And another Tuesday has come and gone without a mini refresh.
And on the "Big Thing" front, no news, no rumors. Is it really possible that Andy Ihnatko and Ireland have better sources than Kasper and Arn?
I'm still down with the Windows API's for OS X, sorta. I mean the only argument against it is that it would be very difficult/impossible to do, because it hasn't been done before. But we could easily be overlooking something that Apple legions of programmers have not.
For example, what about if you had to purchase a copy of Windows like you currently do with Parallels and Boot Camp, but then it was installed into a "compatibility layer" instead, which operated using a CrossOver type approach. Would that allow Apple to license the Windows API to make it easier to implement, instead of having to reverse engineer everything?
People like you have been saying "that's where things are headed" for more than a decade now, and Apple has no problem bucking the trend.
I've only been saying it for about a year.
Apple now have a platform to transition to with the iPhone. They've not ever had before.
I agree that there have have been some who have said this for some time, but now I think they're going to be right.
Time will tell.
As much as I hate to feed the Windows-over-OS X idea, it's worth pointing out that Apple is already a licensee of the Windows API through the patent cross-licensing deal with Redmond done in the late 90's.
Yeah, but I'm not sure what that license means.
Is doing something like CrossOver included, or only making other programs using that API.
If it were as simple as paying Windows some licensing fees, I would have thought CodeWeavers would have already done it. I kind of think that Microsoft's license probably doesn't let you use it in that way...
Codeweavers and other outsiders do not have access to the APIs that Apple does.
Yeah, but I'm not sure what that license means.
Is doing something like CrossOver included, or only making other programs using that API.
If it were as simple as paying Windows some licensing fees, I would have thought CodeWeavers would have already done it. I kind of think that Microsoft's license probably doesn't let you use it in that way...
The license Apple has (as far as I know, since I am not privy to the details) isn't a usual license as most people use the term - it's a cross-patent sharing. Anything MS had in its portfolio prior to date X, Apple can use free and clear, and vice versa. There are no fees, there are no stipulations like you're thinking, in the usual case of these things. It's a straight swap of IP usage licenses.
MS isn't about to license the API to anyone else, this was a "just make all the legal problems go away" move between them and Apple.
Edit: Argh! Beaten by Frank777
The license Apple has (as far as I know, since I am not privy to the details) isn't a usual license as most people use the term - it's a cross-patent sharing. Anything MS had in its portfolio prior to date X, Apple can use free and clear, and vice versa. There are no fees, there are no stipulations like you're thinking, in the usual case of these things. It's a straight swap of IP usage licenses.
MS isn't about to license the API to anyone else, this was a "just make all the legal problems go away" move between them and Apple.
Edit: Argh! Beaten by Frank777
Well, that's pretty hopeful, then.
Except the "prior to date X" part. What does that mean for programs that only run in Vista or Windows 7?