The iSupply $400 profit needs adjusting. You need to factor in some free aftersales care, inventory costs, shipping etc. Let's call it a more realistic $300 for an iMac. Probably $100 on a Mini and on the cheapest MacBook.
Now Imagine if the OEM pack was $250. (pure profit)
With these numbers - total cannibalization of all Mac hardware would produce lower profit as you suggest.
But.
Even with a bit of cannibalization, a greater volume of OS X units would create more profit. And I don't think cannibalization would be that severe. (With the exception of the Mac Pro which is due a refresh.)
The iSupply $400 profit needs adjusting. You need to factor in some free aftersales care, inventory costs, shipping etc. Let's call it a more realistic $300 for an iMac. Probably $100 on a Mini and on the cheapest MacBook.
Now Imagine if the OEM pack was $250. (pure profit)
With these numbers - total cannibalization of all Mac hardware would produce lower profit as you suggest.
But.
Even with a bit of cannibalization, a greater volume of OS X units would create more profit. And I don't think cannibalization would be that severe. (With the exception of the Mac Pro which is due a refresh.)
Spreadsheets are fun.
C.
And you don't think your "pure profit" needs adjusting for aftersales care, inventory, and shipping?
To be more realistic, you would raise that profit per computer sold, since, as I said components costs drop over time, and Apple is a very high volume buyer with significant discounts.
And if Dell was paying Apple $250 for every computer they sold, where would that leave their price to the consumer? Again, if the Dell machine is costing just as much as Apple's cost right now, why would that drive the market growth you predict? Why would Dell even go in for that? Do you think OEM costs are higher than retail cost? Because they're not...
Yeah, spreadsheets are fun when you just make up stuff and type it in with no consideration for how the real world works.
And you don't think your "pure profit" needs adjusting for aftersales care, inventory, and shipping?
No. We are talking about a disk - not a huge fragile box. Dell just switches the Vista OEM pack for the OSX OEM pack.
Quote:
Originally Posted by meelash
To be more realistic, you would raise that profit per computer sold, since, as I said components costs drop over time, and Apple is a very high volume buyer with significant discounts.
Tweak it $50 - See what difference it makes to the numbers. Apple is under intense pressure to cut margins. Not increase them.
Quote:
Originally Posted by meelash
And if Dell was paying Apple $250 for every computer they sold, where would that leave their price to the consumer?
The OS X upgrade option would add $150 to the consumer cost. Possibly less. Vista OEM may be $150.
Dell understands that consumers see OS X as more valuable that the virus-prone Vista option - and the "free" iLife and iWork inclusion would be seen as a major selling point. Much cheaper than Office.
The only thing that would make my jaw drop is if Apple said our iPhones were all satellite capable and Apple (secretly) launced a wordwide network of satellites and that we'd no longer have to use a third-party network and our iPhones would work anywhere on Earth with unlimited use at no cost!
OK maybe I'm dreaming but that WOULD make my jaw drop! :P That's one way to ensure worldwide dominance!
Some of you guys are making a mountain out of a mole hill....
If Apple decides to license out the OS X, they will do it on their terms. They will not allow Dell and HP to have OS X boxes sitting next to a Mac OS X box for hundreds less. What you will see in BB is this:
Apple iMac - ~$1300
Dell iMac Clone + License for OS X from Apple - ~$1300
HP iMac Clone + License for OS X from Apple - ~$1300
If Dell and HP don't want to sell OS X clones, they don't have to. It's their choice. I would bet they would. But there is no way in hell Apple will allow them to undercut them so drastically. Apple will require Dell/HP/whoever to follow hardware standards that they write. That means everything from power supply, to motherboard, to NIC, to future expansion will be dictated by Apple (software too). Apple will end this sh*t of a thousand variations of the same thing...
What is the incentative for Dell/HP? Both Dell and HP can sell their iMac clones to businesses, by the ten of thousands... A market that Apple doesn't want to touch.
Both Dell/HP could further subsidize costs of their iMac clones through business service contracts, support agreements, number of units sold, etc.
And to top it all off, the geeks that want to build and tinker with their homebrewed OS X boxes they can knock their socks off.
Licensing of OS X is coming. This is why Apples hasn't killed Psystar yet. Mark my words.
Which is why finding more customers to pay for it is clever.
Unless the ensuing support costs (call centers, patches, other hardware support, etc) grow faster than your revenue.
Do you *really* think that Apple would relinquish control of the quality of such a necessary piece of the user experience such as hardware drivers to third parties? I can't see it. Which means they'd be responsible for writing it to make sure it was up to their standards. Which means that each new model would be a new cost to Apple, plus support costs for any new customers.
I just don't see it happening, based strictly on the financials.
With no *additional* cost of development - even one additional sale is pure profit.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kickaha
Unless the ensuing support costs (call centers, patches, other hardware support, etc) grow faster than your revenue.
What cost? What patches?
OEM Licensees would use Apple reference hardware. OR pay to develop drivers which would have to be licensed by Apple at the licensees expense.
Aftersales calls might well have to go to the hardware vendor first. When Dell's break - don't you call Dell?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kickaha
Do you *really* think that Apple would relinquish control of the quality of such a necessary piece of the user experience such as hardware drivers to third parties?
Relinquish means "letting go" of something.
Keeping something on a really really tight leash is not the same thing at all.
Apple can insist that licensees jump through hoops and pay for the privilege.
No. We are talking about a disk - not a huge fragile box. Dell just switches the Vista OEM pack for the OSX OEM pack.
Tweak it $50 - See what difference it makes to the numbers. Apple is under intense pressure to cut margins. Not increase them.
The OS X upgrade option would add $150 to the consumer cost. Possibly less. Vista OEM may be $150.
Dell understands that consumers see OS X as more valuable that the virus-prone Vista option - and the "free" iLife and iWork inclusion would be seen as a major selling point. Much cheaper than Office.
C.
Really, you have no idea what you're talking about, and it shows in this post.
Quote:
No. We are talking about a disk - not a huge fragile box. Dell just switches the Vista OEM pack for the OSX OEM pack.
Apple still has aftersales costs (support, updates, etc.) inventory and shipping, meaning that it is not "pure profit"
Quote:
Apple is under intense pressure to cut margins. Not increase them.
WTF? "intense pressure" from who? Apple has the best margins in the industry and they are doing well financially because of it. They certainly aren't responding to that "pressure" given the themes in this thread about how long they go before refreshing their hardware.
And now you're throwing in free iLife and iWork in with that $250 as well, it just doesn't add up.
Even the $150 increase in cost to the consumer, would bring Dell boxes in line with Apple's prices. Then what advantage would anyone have for buying the Dell? How would that drive the miraculous increases in market share?
The whole idea you're proposing is just preposterous.
Some of you guys are making a mountain out of a mole hill....
If Apple decides to license out the OS X, they will do it on their terms. They will not allow Dell and HP to have OS X boxes sitting next to a Mac OS X box for hundreds less. What you will see in BB is this:
Apple iMac - ~$1300
Dell iMac Clone + License for OS X from Apple - ~$1300
HP iMac Clone + License for OS X from Apple - ~$1300
If Dell and HP don't want to sell OS X clones, they don't have to. It's their choice. I would bet they would. But there is no way in hell Apple will allow them to undercut them so drastically. Apple will require Dell/HP/whoever to follow hardware standards that they write. That means everything from power supply, to motherboard, to NIC, to future expansion will be dictated by Apple (software too). Apple will end this sh*t of a thousand variations of the same thing...
Everything you've said up to this point is fine, except for one point: there is no incentive for Apple, Dell, or consumer to care one way or another in this situation. So then you addressed the incentive by saying:
Quote:
What is the incentative for Dell/HP? Both Dell and HP can sell their iMac clones to businesses, by the ten of thousands... A market that Apple doesn't want to touch.
Both Dell/HP could further subsidize costs of their iMac clones through business service contracts, support agreements, number of units sold, etc.
Where do you get the idea Apple doesn't want to touch businesses? Business are not buying Macs because they're more expensive feature-for-feature at the lowest end. Believe me, if companies want to buy tens of thousands of Macs (and there are some that do), Apple would have no problem supplying them, sames as they do with schools and Universities.
In your fantasy scenario, businesses that are currently buying PC's would continue buying Win-Dells, and some companies currently buying Macs would buy Win-Macs instead resulting in lower profit to Apple.
Quote:
And to top it all off, the geeks that want to build and tinker with their homebrewed OS X boxes they can knock their socks off.
Licensing of OS X is coming. This is why Apples hasn't killed Psystar yet. Mark my words.
This completely contradicts what you stated above about Apple licensing on their own terms with hardware standards and restrictions????
Oh, and by the way, Apple is currently *killing* Psystar. In case you hadn't heard.
First, to correct one misconception, businesses pirate like crazy. Any number of developers have found out that that one $40 license they sold to Company X has been running on 10,000 seats for the previous 5 years. No sector has a monopoly on saints.
For the first time in the roughly 150 million year history of the Clone Wars I can see a bit of a case for limited cloning, but not enough to justify it. Just for fun, I'll spell out what I see.
First, ignore the "OS X" trademark filing. The iPhone is not a Mac. Neither is the iPod touch. That's what that's about. Steve has been using OS X this way in presentations for about two years now.
Now, look at the conference call results: Desktop sales are in free fall, plunging 25%, but laptop sales more than made up for it, and Mac sales actually increased year over year. Laptops accounted for 71% of all Macs sold this past quarter. I assume that Apple is frantically evaluating its desktop strategy to see what can be done about this, but I think they realize that the desktop is becoming a niche product.
So: who cares if some company wants to make desktops running OS X? Why not let them? Apple is not in the same circumstances it was in the first time: Licensing wouldn't be a survival strategy, but a hit it's in a position to take in order to increase market share, right?
But this argument defeats itself: First, how do you increase market share by selling into a rapidly contracting market? Why take a hit when you don't have to? Second, what company in their right mind would buy in seriously? It's a low-profit market. Many companies start there, but always with the goal of clawing their way up to the more profitable premium markets. That's just good business sense. So Apple can either go to the trouble of enforcing a desktop-only license (how?) and getting an anemic response, or they can fight off an ambitious company that wants to sell OS X laptops in direct competition to the plum markets that Apple has cornered. That's what the Mac OS cloning companies did the first time, and that's what the real problem is.
A lot of Windows' reputation for unreliability comes from the fact that it must accommodate an uncontrollably large number of drivers for a sea of hardware that ranges from rock solid to junk. Microsoft has tried strenuously to tackle this problem, but since they don't control the hardware platform it's hard, expensive, time consuming and thankless. Apple is a much smaller company. They don't need a much larger problem space. (And yes, if a driver fails, the system vendor is involved and the system will get blamed by users. Microsoft has been there, done that, got the t-shirt).
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.
Can't be done without hardware restrictions built into the vendor's machines. This means new lineups have to be made to accommodate Apple's OS. If they don't, people will simply get hold of the copy of OS X that loads without hardware checks and share it online with the world and people will just use it on all sorts of hardware.
This is what happened years ago. Apple licensed their product to 3rd party vendors and they just didn't pay up and it nearly took Apple 'down the shitter' to quote Jobs so they abandoned the program. Unless they have some smart way of protecting themselves, there's no way they are going there again.
On the subject of the Windows APIs again, this stuff has been going round for years:
I hadn't heard of there being evidence of such a thing in Leopard. Surely if this was the case then it's pretty firm evidence for this to be the case. Why would Apple even have this in their OS is it wasn't for a Windows compatibility layer?
"Upon further research I found that the Mac loader seems to have its own undocumented PE loader built in. So this leads to the question. Whats going on? Is this a hold over from EFI which is PE by default? Why would the OS need to load the EFI files? Maybe just for easy of development and testing? Or is something else going on? Is Apple going to be adding a win32 compatibility layer to OS X? Is having a native PE loader of any use to us?"
"This is new to Leopard. On Tiger, dlopen rejects PE files as expected. PE Files were rejected on Tiger, which is interesting to me because I don't think that this is just a hold over from EFI support. I think it may be a sign of future addition of a Win32 subsystem to OS X."
The project file references ImageLoaderPE.cpp, but that isn't included
in the source...
all the other files are here, so yes it really looks like they are
trying to hide support for
PE. Why would they go to all this trouble to hide Windows Binary support?"
The security issues that could arise from such a compatibility layer could of course be gotten around by sand-boxing, which they introduced in Leopard too.
It's a much more likely scenario than OS X licensing because it means that people who buy or have bought Mac hardware benefit from it, not Apple's hardware rivals. It also scores some points against Microsoft as people don't have to pay licenses for Windows. It could of course mean that people will be less inclined to develop for the Mac in some cases but it could also be the ultimate tool in persuading developers over to the Mac platform as they can develop and test everything easily from one machine for both Mac and Windows users.
They might even jazz it up a bit so that Windows apps run inside semi-aqua (or whatever SL will have) instead of their usual uglified interface.
The only other software/service related announcement I can think of that could be a pretty big deal.....
App Store/SDK for AppleTV!!!!
Would it be enough to breathe some life into the platform?
Maybe a link to the iPhone/iPod Touch to complete the package
The big problem with this is there isn't a good UI for interaction with apps on the Apple TV. If Apple went with this, they would basically be getting into the PS3, XBox, arena. I'm not sure they'd go there only because Apple usually enters markets when they have something really amazing that will revolutionize the market. I'm not sure what there is in this arena to revolutionize.
Assuming Ireland's not just having some fun with us, it really seems like this is the biggest possibility right now. As I said before, obviously a HUGE game changer, assuming it works as seamlessly as we would hope.
Note those finds are from late 2007, so in true Apple fashion this would be something they've been experimenting with for years.
One outstanding query on my part would be about the prospect for the future if Apple went down this path. If they built in some kind of compatibility layer for Win XP and even Vista, but then could not continue it for Win7 and/or beyond, it could turn into a bit of a complicated mess for end-users. In the long run it might be better to just not get into the area at all, rather than get expectations up and not be able to deliver.
Comments
That means it must be true!
That means it must be true!
Or that he drunk so much Irish Whiskey that he passed out...
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.
The iSupply $400 profit needs adjusting. You need to factor in some free aftersales care, inventory costs, shipping etc. Let's call it a more realistic $300 for an iMac. Probably $100 on a Mini and on the cheapest MacBook.
Now Imagine if the OEM pack was $250. (pure profit)
If you run the numbers.....
CurrentScenario: 10 iMacs = 3000 profit
TotalCannibal: 0 iMacs, 10 OSX Dells = 2500 profit (-500)
HybridCannibal 6 iMacs, 10 OSX Dells = 4300 profit. (+1300)
With these numbers - total cannibalization of all Mac hardware would produce lower profit as you suggest.
But.
Even with a bit of cannibalization, a greater volume of OS X units would create more profit. And I don't think cannibalization would be that severe. (With the exception of the Mac Pro which is due a refresh.)
Spreadsheets are fun.
C.
The iSupply $400 profit needs adjusting. You need to factor in some free aftersales care, inventory costs, shipping etc. Let's call it a more realistic $300 for an iMac. Probably $100 on a Mini and on the cheapest MacBook.
Now Imagine if the OEM pack was $250. (pure profit)
If you run the numbers.....
CurrentScenario: 10 iMacs = 3000 profit
TotalCannibal: 0 iMacs, 10 OSX Dells = 2500 profit (-500)
HybridCannibal 6 iMacs, 10 OSX Dells = 4300 profit. (+1300)
With these numbers - total cannibalization of all Mac hardware would produce lower profit as you suggest.
But.
Even with a bit of cannibalization, a greater volume of OS X units would create more profit. And I don't think cannibalization would be that severe. (With the exception of the Mac Pro which is due a refresh.)
Spreadsheets are fun.
C.
And you don't think your "pure profit" needs adjusting for aftersales care, inventory, and shipping?
To be more realistic, you would raise that profit per computer sold, since, as I said components costs drop over time, and Apple is a very high volume buyer with significant discounts.
And if Dell was paying Apple $250 for every computer they sold, where would that leave their price to the consumer? Again, if the Dell machine is costing just as much as Apple's cost right now, why would that drive the market growth you predict? Why would Dell even go in for that? Do you think OEM costs are higher than retail cost? Because they're not...
Yeah, spreadsheets are fun when you just make up stuff and type it in with no consideration for how the real world works.
And you don't think your "pure profit" needs adjusting for aftersales care, inventory, and shipping?
No. We are talking about a disk - not a huge fragile box. Dell just switches the Vista OEM pack for the OSX OEM pack.
To be more realistic, you would raise that profit per computer sold, since, as I said components costs drop over time, and Apple is a very high volume buyer with significant discounts.
Tweak it $50 - See what difference it makes to the numbers. Apple is under intense pressure to cut margins. Not increase them.
And if Dell was paying Apple $250 for every computer they sold, where would that leave their price to the consumer?
The OS X upgrade option would add $150 to the consumer cost. Possibly less. Vista OEM may be $150.
Dell understands that consumers see OS X as more valuable that the virus-prone Vista option - and the "free" iLife and iWork inclusion would be seen as a major selling point. Much cheaper than Office.
C.
OK maybe I'm dreaming but that WOULD make my jaw drop! :P That's one way to ensure worldwide dominance!
If Apple decides to license out the OS X, they will do it on their terms. They will not allow Dell and HP to have OS X boxes sitting next to a Mac OS X box for hundreds less. What you will see in BB is this:
Apple iMac - ~$1300
Dell iMac Clone + License for OS X from Apple - ~$1300
HP iMac Clone + License for OS X from Apple - ~$1300
If Dell and HP don't want to sell OS X clones, they don't have to. It's their choice. I would bet they would. But there is no way in hell Apple will allow them to undercut them so drastically. Apple will require Dell/HP/whoever to follow hardware standards that they write. That means everything from power supply, to motherboard, to NIC, to future expansion will be dictated by Apple (software too). Apple will end this sh*t of a thousand variations of the same thing...
What is the incentative for Dell/HP? Both Dell and HP can sell their iMac clones to businesses, by the ten of thousands... A market that Apple doesn't want to touch.
Both Dell/HP could further subsidize costs of their iMac clones through business service contracts, support agreements, number of units sold, etc.
And to top it all off, the geeks that want to build and tinker with their homebrewed OS X boxes they can knock their socks off.
Licensing of OS X is coming. This is why Apples hasn't killed Psystar yet. Mark my words.
Now Imagine if the OEM pack was $250. (pure profit)
Yes, because the development costs are $0...
Yes, because the development costs are $0...
Exactly. The software development costs *are* zero.
This software is written already. The only possible additional development cost is creation of new hardware drivers - which could be...
1) Avoided by adopting Apple reference hardware
2) Borne by the hardware manufacturers
C.
Exactly. The software development costs *are* zero.
This software is written already. The only possible additional development cost is creation of new hardware drivers - which could be...
1) Avoided by adopting Apple reference hardware
2) Borne by the hardware manufacturers
C.
So OS updates get written themselves?
So OS updates get written themselves?
Errm. No.
Maintaining an OS is an expensive thing to do.
Which is why finding more customers to pay for it is clever.
C.
Errm. No.
Maintaining an OS is an expensive thing to do.
Soooooo... not pure profit then.
Which is why finding more customers to pay for it is clever.
Unless the ensuing support costs (call centers, patches, other hardware support, etc) grow faster than your revenue.
Do you *really* think that Apple would relinquish control of the quality of such a necessary piece of the user experience such as hardware drivers to third parties? I can't see it. Which means they'd be responsible for writing it to make sure it was up to their standards. Which means that each new model would be a new cost to Apple, plus support costs for any new customers.
I just don't see it happening, based strictly on the financials.
Soooooo... not pure profit then.
Yes pure profit.
With no *additional* cost of development - even one additional sale is pure profit.
Unless the ensuing support costs (call centers, patches, other hardware support, etc) grow faster than your revenue.
What cost? What patches?
OEM Licensees would use Apple reference hardware. OR pay to develop drivers which would have to be licensed by Apple at the licensees expense.
Aftersales calls might well have to go to the hardware vendor first. When Dell's break - don't you call Dell?
Do you *really* think that Apple would relinquish control of the quality of such a necessary piece of the user experience such as hardware drivers to third parties?
Relinquish means "letting go" of something.
Keeping something on a really really tight leash is not the same thing at all.
Apple can insist that licensees jump through hoops and pay for the privilege.
C.
No. We are talking about a disk - not a huge fragile box. Dell just switches the Vista OEM pack for the OSX OEM pack.
Tweak it $50 - See what difference it makes to the numbers. Apple is under intense pressure to cut margins. Not increase them.
The OS X upgrade option would add $150 to the consumer cost. Possibly less. Vista OEM may be $150.
Dell understands that consumers see OS X as more valuable that the virus-prone Vista option - and the "free" iLife and iWork inclusion would be seen as a major selling point. Much cheaper than Office.
C.
Really, you have no idea what you're talking about, and it shows in this post.
No. We are talking about a disk - not a huge fragile box. Dell just switches the Vista OEM pack for the OSX OEM pack.
Apple still has aftersales costs (support, updates, etc.) inventory and shipping, meaning that it is not "pure profit"
Apple is under intense pressure to cut margins. Not increase them.
WTF? "intense pressure" from who? Apple has the best margins in the industry and they are doing well financially because of it. They certainly aren't responding to that "pressure" given the themes in this thread about how long they go before refreshing their hardware.
And now you're throwing in free iLife and iWork in with that $250 as well, it just doesn't add up.
Even the $150 increase in cost to the consumer, would bring Dell boxes in line with Apple's prices. Then what advantage would anyone have for buying the Dell? How would that drive the miraculous increases in market share?
The whole idea you're proposing is just preposterous.
Some of you guys are making a mountain out of a mole hill....
If Apple decides to license out the OS X, they will do it on their terms. They will not allow Dell and HP to have OS X boxes sitting next to a Mac OS X box for hundreds less. What you will see in BB is this:
Apple iMac - ~$1300
Dell iMac Clone + License for OS X from Apple - ~$1300
HP iMac Clone + License for OS X from Apple - ~$1300
If Dell and HP don't want to sell OS X clones, they don't have to. It's their choice. I would bet they would. But there is no way in hell Apple will allow them to undercut them so drastically. Apple will require Dell/HP/whoever to follow hardware standards that they write. That means everything from power supply, to motherboard, to NIC, to future expansion will be dictated by Apple (software too). Apple will end this sh*t of a thousand variations of the same thing...
Everything you've said up to this point is fine, except for one point: there is no incentive for Apple, Dell, or consumer to care one way or another in this situation. So then you addressed the incentive by saying:
What is the incentative for Dell/HP? Both Dell and HP can sell their iMac clones to businesses, by the ten of thousands... A market that Apple doesn't want to touch.
Both Dell/HP could further subsidize costs of their iMac clones through business service contracts, support agreements, number of units sold, etc.
Where do you get the idea Apple doesn't want to touch businesses? Business are not buying Macs because they're more expensive feature-for-feature at the lowest end. Believe me, if companies want to buy tens of thousands of Macs (and there are some that do), Apple would have no problem supplying them, sames as they do with schools and Universities.
In your fantasy scenario, businesses that are currently buying PC's would continue buying Win-Dells, and some companies currently buying Macs would buy Win-Macs instead resulting in lower profit to Apple.
And to top it all off, the geeks that want to build and tinker with their homebrewed OS X boxes they can knock their socks off.
Licensing of OS X is coming. This is why Apples hasn't killed Psystar yet. Mark my words.
This completely contradicts what you stated above about Apple licensing on their own terms with hardware standards and restrictions????
Oh, and by the way, Apple is currently *killing* Psystar. In case you hadn't heard.
The only other software/service related announcement I can think of that could be a pretty big deal.....
App Store/SDK for AppleTV!!!!
Would it be enough to breathe some life into the platform?
Maybe a link to the iPhone/iPod Touch to complete the package
For the first time in the roughly 150 million year history of the Clone Wars I can see a bit of a case for limited cloning, but not enough to justify it. Just for fun, I'll spell out what I see.
First, ignore the "OS X" trademark filing. The iPhone is not a Mac. Neither is the iPod touch. That's what that's about. Steve has been using OS X this way in presentations for about two years now.
Now, look at the conference call results: Desktop sales are in free fall, plunging 25%, but laptop sales more than made up for it, and Mac sales actually increased year over year. Laptops accounted for 71% of all Macs sold this past quarter. I assume that Apple is frantically evaluating its desktop strategy to see what can be done about this, but I think they realize that the desktop is becoming a niche product.
So: who cares if some company wants to make desktops running OS X? Why not let them? Apple is not in the same circumstances it was in the first time: Licensing wouldn't be a survival strategy, but a hit it's in a position to take in order to increase market share, right?
But this argument defeats itself: First, how do you increase market share by selling into a rapidly contracting market? Why take a hit when you don't have to? Second, what company in their right mind would buy in seriously? It's a low-profit market. Many companies start there, but always with the goal of clawing their way up to the more profitable premium markets. That's just good business sense. So Apple can either go to the trouble of enforcing a desktop-only license (how?) and getting an anemic response, or they can fight off an ambitious company that wants to sell OS X laptops in direct competition to the plum markets that Apple has cornered. That's what the Mac OS cloning companies did the first time, and that's what the real problem is.
A lot of Windows' reputation for unreliability comes from the fact that it must accommodate an uncontrollably large number of drivers for a sea of hardware that ranges from rock solid to junk. Microsoft has tried strenuously to tackle this problem, but since they don't control the hardware platform it's hard, expensive, time consuming and thankless. Apple is a much smaller company. They don't need a much larger problem space. (And yes, if a driver fails, the system vendor is involved and the system will get blamed by users. Microsoft has been there, done that, got the t-shirt).
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.
Can't be done without hardware restrictions built into the vendor's machines. This means new lineups have to be made to accommodate Apple's OS. If they don't, people will simply get hold of the copy of OS X that loads without hardware checks and share it online with the world and people will just use it on all sorts of hardware.
This is what happened years ago. Apple licensed their product to 3rd party vendors and they just didn't pay up and it nearly took Apple 'down the shitter' to quote Jobs so they abandoned the program. Unless they have some smart way of protecting themselves, there's no way they are going there again.
On the subject of the Windows APIs again, this stuff has been going round for years:
http://www.speedofcreativity.org/200...ndows-license/
http://www.marco.org/269
Something in that last site caught my attention though:
"The PE loader in Leopard is a pretty clear sign that Apple has at least experimented with this idea in the labs."
The portable executable loader seems to be for loading Windows binaries:
http://www.cultdeadcow.com/tools/pewrap.html
I hadn't heard of there being evidence of such a thing in Leopard. Surely if this was the case then it's pretty firm evidence for this to be the case. Why would Apple even have this in their OS is it wasn't for a Windows compatibility layer?
http://www.winehq.org/pipermail/wine...er/060846.html
"Upon further research I found that the Mac loader seems to have its own undocumented PE loader built in. So this leads to the question. Whats going on? Is this a hold over from EFI which is PE by default? Why would the OS need to load the EFI files? Maybe just for easy of development and testing? Or is something else going on? Is Apple going to be adding a win32 compatibility layer to OS X? Is having a native PE loader of any use to us?"
"This is new to Leopard. On Tiger, dlopen rejects PE files as expected. PE Files were rejected on Tiger, which is interesting to me because I don't think that this is just a hold over from EFI support. I think it may be a sign of future addition of a Win32 subsystem to OS X."
"More information
http://www.opensource.apple.com/darw.../src/strip.exp
which contains
# local symbols to suppress
*PE*
*Win*
The project file references ImageLoaderPE.cpp, but that isn't included
in the source...
all the other files are here, so yes it really looks like they are
trying to hide support for
PE. Why would they go to all this trouble to hide Windows Binary support?"
The security issues that could arise from such a compatibility layer could of course be gotten around by sand-boxing, which they introduced in Leopard too.
It's a much more likely scenario than OS X licensing because it means that people who buy or have bought Mac hardware benefit from it, not Apple's hardware rivals. It also scores some points against Microsoft as people don't have to pay licenses for Windows. It could of course mean that people will be less inclined to develop for the Mac in some cases but it could also be the ultimate tool in persuading developers over to the Mac platform as they can develop and test everything easily from one machine for both Mac and Windows users.
They might even jazz it up a bit so that Windows apps run inside semi-aqua (or whatever SL will have) instead of their usual uglified interface.
BACK ON TOPIC (Ireland style)
The only other software/service related announcement I can think of that could be a pretty big deal.....
App Store/SDK for AppleTV!!!!
Would it be enough to breathe some life into the platform?
Maybe a link to the iPhone/iPod Touch to complete the package
The big problem with this is there isn't a good UI for interaction with apps on the Apple TV. If Apple went with this, they would basically be getting into the PS3, XBox, arena. I'm not sure they'd go there only because Apple usually enters markets when they have something really amazing that will revolutionize the market. I'm not sure what there is in this arena to revolutionize.
Assuming Ireland's not just having some fun with us, it really seems like this is the biggest possibility right now. As I said before, obviously a HUGE game changer, assuming it works as seamlessly as we would hope.
Note those finds are from late 2007, so in true Apple fashion this would be something they've been experimenting with for years.
One outstanding query on my part would be about the prospect for the future if Apple went down this path. If they built in some kind of compatibility layer for Win XP and even Vista, but then could not continue it for Win7 and/or beyond, it could turn into a bit of a complicated mess for end-users. In the long run it might be better to just not get into the area at all, rather than get expectations up and not be able to deliver.
Thoughts?