We always have to keep in mind the answer Jobs gave in an interview when he was back at Next. He was asked about what he would do if he were back at Apple. His answer:
"I would milk the Mac for all it was worth, and then I would move on to the next big thing."
I don't remember the exact wording, but that summarizes it up.
It sure do look as though it's what he's doing.
I've thought the same thing, remembering that quote.
There's also a quote from Jobs to the effect that he holds no affection for the past or sees any reason to cling to what has come before. When he judges something's time is done, it's gone as if it never existed (to the point that he sometimes seems to be pulling the rug out from under Apple's users).
I could seriously imagine him feeling like the whole desktop paradigm is played, and being very excited about getting to be at the forefront of the next big thing.
That doesn't mean he's right, necessarily, and I sincerely hope Apple doesn't let it's desktop OS languish (surely they have enough talented people to do both?), but it's certainly easy to get the impression that the "original Mac team" energy at the current Apple is all about touch and handhelds.
Considering the huge cost of R&D, limited market share overall, plus time to market - will Apple achieve the performance and price necessary to stay competitive in the market?
More likely, it looks like a gradual creeping of proprietary chips into the Apple devices would make sense and be less risky... starting with graphics. Regardless, I think it is difficult to be fully vertically integrated and compete.
Meanwhile, with the iPhone, Apple outsourced almost all components. Even assembly got outsourced to Hon Hai. This kind of strategy allowed for a huge supply chain to developed overseas, especially in China. Ready made resources for competitors and piracy.
I just do not understand how US companies can be so short sighted when they outsourced core functions overseas, especially China.
Considering the huge cost of R&D, limited market share overall, plus time to market - will Apple achieve the performance and price necessary to stay competitive in the market?
More likely, it looks like a gradual creeping of proprietary chips into the Apple devices would make sense and be less risky... starting with graphics. Regardless, I think it is difficult to be fully vertically integrated and compete.
Meanwhile, with the iPhone, Apple outsourced almost all components. Even assembly got outsourced to Hon Hai. This kind of strategy allowed for a huge supply chain to developed overseas, especially in China. Ready made resources for competitors and piracy.
I just do not understand how US companies can be so short sighted when they outsourced core functions overseas, especially China.
Apple has no intentions of designing their own graphics core. It will be difficult to outdo the pace of commodity hardware but Apple's assembling a nice team and I'm thinking their focus will be on low power and specific features that benefit OS X.
US companies outsource because they ony look at today's costs and really don't factor in the long term costs and ramifications of dealing with China. Though when China rips them off or when India gets caught selling secrets I just laugh because in a way its just desserts for overpaid executives who have no allegiance to anything but profits. </soapbox>
First it is just software and hardware in general. Now its unibodys and chips specifically. In the next decade Apple will make its own hard-drives, GPU cards, memory, fans, ect.
I've thought the same thing, remembering that quote.
There's also a quote from Jobs to the effect that he holds no affection for the past or sees any reason to cling to what has come before. When he judges something's time is done, it's gone as if it never existed (to the point that he sometimes seems to be pulling the rug out from under Apple's users).
I could seriously imagine him feeling like the whole desktop paradigm is played, and being very excited about getting to be at the forefront of the next big thing.
That doesn't mean he's right, necessarily, and I sincerely hope Apple doesn't let it's desktop OS languish (surely they have enough talented people to do both?), but it's certainly easy to get the impression that the "original Mac team" energy at the current Apple is all about touch and handhelds.
The Mac is still too big a chunk of the business to let it go in any way.
But over time, I've thought about the whole idea of Apple's licensing the OS. I know this is anathema to some people, but it's not really that impossible to believe.
With the way the Macs sales had been growing, it threw my idea out the window, but it's still possible, if the recession puts a damper on sales.
My thoughts are, as expressed here a number of times over the years, is that if Apple's other businesses grow to the point that the Mac represents about 25% or less of the business, but it still growing nicely, Apple could deal out a limited clone business to a few companies. They would have learned from the past.
If that happened, and they lost a third of their Mac sales, it would only be about 8% of the business. That's not much. When they first opened up to unlimited clones, the Mac was 80% of the business, and Apple was in hard times.
This quarter, they announced that their software business did VERY well. I think it did better than ever before. iLife and iWork was singled out.
If Apple licensed out OS X to these manufacturers, and sold more copies of their software, the much higher profits of software would make Apple more profitable than now.
So it could be done. But Mac sales have to represent a smaller proportion of sales and profits for it to happen, but still be desirable to other manufacturers and customers. I think that would be the case.
The Mac is still too big a chunk of the business to let it go in any way.
But over time, I've thought about the whole idea of Apple's licensing the OS. I know this is anathema to some people, but it's not really that impossible to believe.
With the way the Macs sales had been growing, it threw my idea out the window, but it's still possible, if the recession puts a damper on sales.
My thoughts are, as expressed here a number of times over the years, is that if Apple's other businesses grow to the point that the Mac represents about 25% or less of the business, but it still growing nicely, Apple could deal out a limited clone business to a few companies. They would have learned from the past.
If that happened, and they lost a third of their Mac sales, it would only be about 8% of the business. That's not much. When they first opened up to unlimited clones, the Mac was 80% of the business, and Apple was in hard times.
This quarter, they announced that their software business did VERY well. I think it did better than ever before. iLife and iWork was singled out.
If Apple licensed out OS X to these manufacturers, and sold more copies of their software, the much higher profits of software would make Apple more profitable than now.
So it could be done. But Mac sales have to represent a smaller proportion of sales and profits for it to happen, but still be desirable to other manufacturers and customers. I think that would be the case.
That is the first plausible scenario I've read for Apple willingly licensing Mac OS X.
Meanwhile, with the iPhone, Apple outsourced almost all components. Even assembly got outsourced to Hon Hai. This kind of strategy allowed for a huge supply chain to developed overseas, especially in China. Ready made resources for competitors and piracy.
I just do not understand how US companies can be so short sighted when they outsourced core functions overseas, especially China.
It's very simple. It all has to do with the consumer.
The consumer (you know who you are!) constantly demands cheaper products. The only way to meet those demands is to manufacture where costs are much lower.
Thr Japanese used to complain about not being able to sell super VHS or super Beta here in the US because consumers here were only concerned about price.
It's true! That's why Beta died.
People here in the US are known for wanting the cheapest, but not the best.
Even Consumer Reports does this with their "best buy". A whole chain of stores was named after that concept.
Not the best product, but the product thats "ok" but much cheaper.
How many people here look to buy clothes made in the US? No? well thats what happens when we look for shirts that cost half of what it costs to make them here.
Look at how people complain that Apple's machines cost more than PCs, and refuse to understand why. they don't want to know why, they just want them to be cheaper.
If they were made here, as computers used to be when the US was the worlds largest computer exporter, they would be much more expensive.
US companies outsource because they ony look at today's costs and really don't factor in the long term costs and ramifications of dealing with China. Though when China rips them off or when India gets caught selling secrets I just laugh because in a way its just desserts for overpaid executives who have no allegiance to anything but profits. </soapbox>
As I've just posted, it's the fault of the consumer always looking for something cheaper, but not better.
Quality costs. China has some of the most modern manufacturing facilities. Thety can make products that equal that made anywhere else, but more cheaply.
Can we blame companies for going there? Not when products are marketed on price as the new Microsoft ads are.
And they're marketed that way, because that's what the consumer wants.
That is the first plausible scenario I've read for Apple willingly licensing Mac OS X.
If people don't take a fanboy stand (often without realizing they're doing it), it's amazing how things become clearer.
We see a large demand for an OS X based computer, but cheaper, as I've just written about in the two other posts.
If the "cheap" movement can't be stopped, then, somehow, Apple must join it.
To do it themselves might be a problem. But to have two, possibly three, or four other well known manufacturers give the public what they want, would work. But Apple would have to conclude deals about just what these companies would be producing. not like last time, when Apple made an assumption which didn't come true.
If Apple lets the low end sales evaporate, but kept the high end sales, they would be doing dandy. These other companies know how to make cheap machines, the public EXPECTS them to make cheap machines, and Apple can't. Perfect!
If some people decided that they didn't like the cheap machines, but liked the OS, then, next time, they could buy a genuine Apple product, which would carry even more prestige than now. Apple could concentrate on detail and quality.
Increased iPhone/itouch sales, and overall high levels of iPod sales, which surprise to most people, still seem to be growing, will keep Apple's sales moving up.
Software sales are a large part of the business, and are much more profitable than hardware can ever be. We see that from MS's $17.5 billion in profits last year with just $60.5 billion in sales. This is despite massive losses from the games division, internet search, investments and other areas.
In fact, I would like to see Apple do this, if the circumstances are right.
As I've just posted, it's the fault of the consumer always looking for something cheaper, but not better.
Quality costs. China has some of the most modern manufacturing facilities. Thety can make products that equal that made anywhere else, but more cheaply.
Can we blame companies for going there? Not when products are marketed on price as the new Microsoft ads are.
And they're marketed that way, because that's what the consumer wants.
Consumers en masse didn't ask for crap. It's been the abdication of US manufacturing and an emphasis on overconsumption of crap which has led to China and other "near slave labor" sweatshops taking over.
Apple is not licensing OS X. Apple is moving to the "Cloud" to offer OS X like apps and services also to non-OS X users.
This Hw group is both for iPhone (maybe a tablet and iPhone nano) but also most probably for AppleTV 3 that will compete with current generation consoles
Consumers en masse didn't ask for crap. It's been the abdication of US manufacturing and an emphasis on overconsumption of crap which has led to China and other "near slave labor" sweatshops taking over.
Any wonder the US is in the shitter right now?
Companies give consumers what they want. If consumers want high quality, then they can show that by buying high quality. When they show that they prefer the cheap stuff, manufacturers will scramble trying to find ways of making cheaper products than their competitor. That leads to manufacturing in Mexico, then wherever it's cheaper than there.
People here don't care about nationalistic things such as saving the jobs of people they don't know. The only time that is a concern is when they find it's their own job on the line.
In quite a few other countries, buying goods made locally is a big concern. The governments work to make that happen as well.
Apple is not licensing OS X. Apple is moving to the "Cloud" to offer OS X like apps and services also to non-OS X users.
This Hw group is both for iPhone (maybe a tablet and iPhone nano) but also most probably for AppleTV 3 that will compete with current generation consoles
Apple will have at least some kind of custom chips ready for their new products in June. No, it won't be the full master plan that they are building with all those new recent hires. But we will see at least some fruits of their labors concerning custom chips this June.
Comments
We always have to keep in mind the answer Jobs gave in an interview when he was back at Next. He was asked about what he would do if he were back at Apple. His answer:
"I would milk the Mac for all it was worth, and then I would move on to the next big thing."
I don't remember the exact wording, but that summarizes it up.
It sure do look as though it's what he's doing.
I've thought the same thing, remembering that quote.
There's also a quote from Jobs to the effect that he holds no affection for the past or sees any reason to cling to what has come before. When he judges something's time is done, it's gone as if it never existed (to the point that he sometimes seems to be pulling the rug out from under Apple's users).
I could seriously imagine him feeling like the whole desktop paradigm is played, and being very excited about getting to be at the forefront of the next big thing.
That doesn't mean he's right, necessarily, and I sincerely hope Apple doesn't let it's desktop OS languish (surely they have enough talented people to do both?), but it's certainly easy to get the impression that the "original Mac team" energy at the current Apple is all about touch and handhelds.
More likely, it looks like a gradual creeping of proprietary chips into the Apple devices would make sense and be less risky... starting with graphics. Regardless, I think it is difficult to be fully vertically integrated and compete.
Meanwhile, with the iPhone, Apple outsourced almost all components. Even assembly got outsourced to Hon Hai. This kind of strategy allowed for a huge supply chain to developed overseas, especially in China. Ready made resources for competitors and piracy.
I just do not understand how US companies can be so short sighted when they outsourced core functions overseas, especially China.
Considering the huge cost of R&D, limited market share overall, plus time to market - will Apple achieve the performance and price necessary to stay competitive in the market?
More likely, it looks like a gradual creeping of proprietary chips into the Apple devices would make sense and be less risky... starting with graphics. Regardless, I think it is difficult to be fully vertically integrated and compete.
Meanwhile, with the iPhone, Apple outsourced almost all components. Even assembly got outsourced to Hon Hai. This kind of strategy allowed for a huge supply chain to developed overseas, especially in China. Ready made resources for competitors and piracy.
I just do not understand how US companies can be so short sighted when they outsourced core functions overseas, especially China.
Apple has no intentions of designing their own graphics core. It will be difficult to outdo the pace of commodity hardware but Apple's assembling a nice team and I'm thinking their focus will be on low power and specific features that benefit OS X.
US companies outsource because they ony look at today's costs and really don't factor in the long term costs and ramifications of dealing with China. Though when China rips them off or when India gets caught selling secrets I just laugh because in a way its just desserts for overpaid executives who have no allegiance to anything but profits. </soapbox>
should be:
"... Apple's is said to be facing its share of challenges in developing its first batch of custom chip designs ..."
"... Apple's said to be facing its share of challenges in developing its first batch of custom chip designs ..."
or
"... Apple is said to be facing its share of challenges in developing its first batch of custom chip designs ..."
Lets not forget the aluminum polish.
I've thought the same thing, remembering that quote.
There's also a quote from Jobs to the effect that he holds no affection for the past or sees any reason to cling to what has come before. When he judges something's time is done, it's gone as if it never existed (to the point that he sometimes seems to be pulling the rug out from under Apple's users).
I could seriously imagine him feeling like the whole desktop paradigm is played, and being very excited about getting to be at the forefront of the next big thing.
That doesn't mean he's right, necessarily, and I sincerely hope Apple doesn't let it's desktop OS languish (surely they have enough talented people to do both?), but it's certainly easy to get the impression that the "original Mac team" energy at the current Apple is all about touch and handhelds.
The Mac is still too big a chunk of the business to let it go in any way.
But over time, I've thought about the whole idea of Apple's licensing the OS. I know this is anathema to some people, but it's not really that impossible to believe.
With the way the Macs sales had been growing, it threw my idea out the window, but it's still possible, if the recession puts a damper on sales.
My thoughts are, as expressed here a number of times over the years, is that if Apple's other businesses grow to the point that the Mac represents about 25% or less of the business, but it still growing nicely, Apple could deal out a limited clone business to a few companies. They would have learned from the past.
If that happened, and they lost a third of their Mac sales, it would only be about 8% of the business. That's not much. When they first opened up to unlimited clones, the Mac was 80% of the business, and Apple was in hard times.
This quarter, they announced that their software business did VERY well. I think it did better than ever before. iLife and iWork was singled out.
If Apple licensed out OS X to these manufacturers, and sold more copies of their software, the much higher profits of software would make Apple more profitable than now.
So it could be done. But Mac sales have to represent a smaller proportion of sales and profits for it to happen, but still be desirable to other manufacturers and customers. I think that would be the case.
The Mac is still too big a chunk of the business to let it go in any way.
But over time, I've thought about the whole idea of Apple's licensing the OS. I know this is anathema to some people, but it's not really that impossible to believe.
With the way the Macs sales had been growing, it threw my idea out the window, but it's still possible, if the recession puts a damper on sales.
My thoughts are, as expressed here a number of times over the years, is that if Apple's other businesses grow to the point that the Mac represents about 25% or less of the business, but it still growing nicely, Apple could deal out a limited clone business to a few companies. They would have learned from the past.
If that happened, and they lost a third of their Mac sales, it would only be about 8% of the business. That's not much. When they first opened up to unlimited clones, the Mac was 80% of the business, and Apple was in hard times.
This quarter, they announced that their software business did VERY well. I think it did better than ever before. iLife and iWork was singled out.
If Apple licensed out OS X to these manufacturers, and sold more copies of their software, the much higher profits of software would make Apple more profitable than now.
So it could be done. But Mac sales have to represent a smaller proportion of sales and profits for it to happen, but still be desirable to other manufacturers and customers. I think that would be the case.
That is the first plausible scenario I've read for Apple willingly licensing Mac OS X.
Meanwhile, with the iPhone, Apple outsourced almost all components. Even assembly got outsourced to Hon Hai. This kind of strategy allowed for a huge supply chain to developed overseas, especially in China. Ready made resources for competitors and piracy.
I just do not understand how US companies can be so short sighted when they outsourced core functions overseas, especially China.
It's very simple. It all has to do with the consumer.
The consumer (you know who you are!) constantly demands cheaper products. The only way to meet those demands is to manufacture where costs are much lower.
Thr Japanese used to complain about not being able to sell super VHS or super Beta here in the US because consumers here were only concerned about price.
It's true! That's why Beta died.
People here in the US are known for wanting the cheapest, but not the best.
Even Consumer Reports does this with their "best buy". A whole chain of stores was named after that concept.
Not the best product, but the product thats "ok" but much cheaper.
How many people here look to buy clothes made in the US? No? well thats what happens when we look for shirts that cost half of what it costs to make them here.
Look at how people complain that Apple's machines cost more than PCs, and refuse to understand why. they don't want to know why, they just want them to be cheaper.
If they were made here, as computers used to be when the US was the worlds largest computer exporter, they would be much more expensive.
Would you buy one then?
US companies outsource because they ony look at today's costs and really don't factor in the long term costs and ramifications of dealing with China. Though when China rips them off or when India gets caught selling secrets I just laugh because in a way its just desserts for overpaid executives who have no allegiance to anything but profits. </soapbox>
As I've just posted, it's the fault of the consumer always looking for something cheaper, but not better.
Quality costs. China has some of the most modern manufacturing facilities. Thety can make products that equal that made anywhere else, but more cheaply.
Can we blame companies for going there? Not when products are marketed on price as the new Microsoft ads are.
And they're marketed that way, because that's what the consumer wants.
That is the first plausible scenario I've read for Apple willingly licensing Mac OS X.
If people don't take a fanboy stand (often without realizing they're doing it), it's amazing how things become clearer.
We see a large demand for an OS X based computer, but cheaper, as I've just written about in the two other posts.
If the "cheap" movement can't be stopped, then, somehow, Apple must join it.
To do it themselves might be a problem. But to have two, possibly three, or four other well known manufacturers give the public what they want, would work. But Apple would have to conclude deals about just what these companies would be producing. not like last time, when Apple made an assumption which didn't come true.
If Apple lets the low end sales evaporate, but kept the high end sales, they would be doing dandy. These other companies know how to make cheap machines, the public EXPECTS them to make cheap machines, and Apple can't. Perfect!
If some people decided that they didn't like the cheap machines, but liked the OS, then, next time, they could buy a genuine Apple product, which would carry even more prestige than now. Apple could concentrate on detail and quality.
Increased iPhone/itouch sales, and overall high levels of iPod sales, which surprise to most people, still seem to be growing, will keep Apple's sales moving up.
Software sales are a large part of the business, and are much more profitable than hardware can ever be. We see that from MS's $17.5 billion in profits last year with just $60.5 billion in sales. This is despite massive losses from the games division, internet search, investments and other areas.
In fact, I would like to see Apple do this, if the circumstances are right.
As I've just posted, it's the fault of the consumer always looking for something cheaper, but not better.
Quality costs. China has some of the most modern manufacturing facilities. Thety can make products that equal that made anywhere else, but more cheaply.
Can we blame companies for going there? Not when products are marketed on price as the new Microsoft ads are.
And they're marketed that way, because that's what the consumer wants.
Consumers en masse didn't ask for crap. It's been the abdication of US manufacturing and an emphasis on overconsumption of crap which has led to China and other "near slave labor" sweatshops taking over.
Any wonder the US is in the shitter right now?
This Hw group is both for iPhone (maybe a tablet and iPhone nano) but also most probably for AppleTV 3 that will compete with current generation consoles
Consumers en masse didn't ask for crap. It's been the abdication of US manufacturing and an emphasis on overconsumption of crap which has led to China and other "near slave labor" sweatshops taking over.
Any wonder the US is in the shitter right now?
Companies give consumers what they want. If consumers want high quality, then they can show that by buying high quality. When they show that they prefer the cheap stuff, manufacturers will scramble trying to find ways of making cheaper products than their competitor. That leads to manufacturing in Mexico, then wherever it's cheaper than there.
People here don't care about nationalistic things such as saving the jobs of people they don't know. The only time that is a concern is when they find it's their own job on the line.
In quite a few other countries, buying goods made locally is a big concern. The governments work to make that happen as well.
Apple is not licensing OS X. Apple is moving to the "Cloud" to offer OS X like apps and services also to non-OS X users.
This Hw group is both for iPhone (maybe a tablet and iPhone nano) but also most probably for AppleTV 3 that will compete with current generation consoles
apple can have it both ways
apple can keep OS X for itself
and sell the old OS 9.2 !!
it was a rock solid platform
Apple will have at least some kind of custom chips ready for their new products in June. No, it won't be the full master plan that they are building with all those new recent hires. But we will see at least some fruits of their labors concerning custom chips this June.