i think, given the update of the iphone/touch OS, that the mystery product could be the Apple TV upgrade. it's been Steve's "pet project" for several years now and he won't give up on it. think about an Apple TV with all the capabilities of the iPhone/iPod Touch! internet, email, contacts, calender, google maps and more apps on your TV. Plus i think i will include a DVR. the Ultimate competition for TiVo! Give it a 500 Gig hard drive and it could replace the "Time Machine" as a home server.
Think about it. A device that could be used wirelessly or by cable, it could control every computer in your home, via iphone remote or it's own multi-touch remote, it's a DVR, a link to your iTunes and fully internet capable via iphone/touch qwerty keyboard. It can link up with any cable/SAT or over the air broadcast. This has no competition and if they put a $299 price tag on it, who wouldn't buy this!
We know Apple likes to control their designs, but they don't actually build them anymore...
Dell will sell anything that includes a Dell logo on it (PDAs, mp3 players, printers, etc...)...
Dell has probably the most streamlined mass manufacturing system for computers...
Dell re-packages drivers for their systems...
Apple licenses Dell to build a low-end Mac Mini (mini tower) replacement featuring Mac OS X . This system is cross-branded Dell/Apple and Dell provides the system support.
Apple wins from software/brand licensing and future software sales...
Dell wins with a product that captures both the Dell and Apple branding loyalty, boosts their profits from additional system sales, and can leverage the competition with Microsoft...
Apple also wins in that they crush the need for a hacked clone system...
Consumers win with a new low-cost entry into the world of Mac, a product they may not of considered before due to price or unfamilarity with Apple computers. But they know Dell and would be comfortable with that purchase. These would be consumers that wouldn't necessarily have bought an Apple computer otherwise...
Another Apple win, they don't need to pay for the R&D on the system...
Folks are buying $500 atom-based netbooks and installing OS X on them.
The performance isn't too bad either.
But you gotta face it, you can't launch one of these without killing the Air.
Nonsense. The eeePC and its ilk are not in the same category as the Air. Who in their right mind, when what they want is a tiny laptop with 10" or smaller screen actually goes and gets an Air? Not many people.
If you are buying an Air, you're not interested in minuscule laptops. However, there are plenty of other people who are interested in minuscule laptops so it might be worth Apple making one.
Speaking of overstatement, the high price of retail copies of Windows is irrelevant, because almost no one buys it that way. Microsoft charges major manufacturers (that buy in bulk, as you say) about $40 a license, depending on version. Apple could easily match that price.
I don't want to go off-topic talking about Windows OEM licensing, so my point is that if Apple were to license OSX, their sale of the license -whether it's $20 or $100 per machine- is mostly profit and is tantamount to the profit Apple makes off a hardware sale. Especially if done in bulk.
Again, I don't think this is likely. I'd give it about a 5% chance of happening, but dismissing it because of what happened 15 years ago is silly.
We are both agreeing that it's unlikely, but for argument's sake...
What do you think is the average selling price of Macs? Let's say it's $1500, I think that's a reasonable estimate. Apple's typical margin is 30%. That's $500 profit for each Mac sold...a far cry from "$20 or $100" for OEM licensing! (Admittedly, I think their Mac margin is lower than their overall margin, but the result is the same.) Every Mac clone that is purchased instead of Apple hardware is a significant loss to Apple unless they charge at least, say, $200 for the OEM license. Now that $600 budget PC becomes a $760 Mac clone ($200 - $40 for Vista). I think you lose a lot of appeal with that.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Carniphage
Apple have already made OS X - It's paid for already. The only question is, how should they now make money from it?
If Apple licensed OS X to Sony - and charged Sony $100 per OEM copy - that's $100 additional revenue. And another $100 if the customer buys iLife.
Please explain cannibalization. Why should Apple automatically lose hardware sales if this happened? Are you saying that Mac hardware isn't good enough? Are you saying people wouldn't buy Mac hardware if they could buy a Vaio? I happen to believe that Mac hardware can stand on its own feet.
Now turn your question around. How much money does Apple lose by only being able to sell iWork, MobileMe and all its SOFTWARE products only to Mac hardware. If OS X had 30% market share. How much more software could Apple sell? And how many more developers would be attracted to the platform?
C.
"Please explain cannibalization." The cannibalization comes not so much from someone offering a machine similar to something Apple currently offers in terms of features. I agree that Apple's designs would win out there. The cannibalization comes from someone offering a machine that Apple doesn't, such as a budget laptop. A $700 Mac clone would most certainly eat into Apple's MacBook sales. A $1000 Mac clone minittower would most certainly eat into iMac sales. It's just an opinion, but I think Apple would have to set the OEM license too high to make up for thost lost hardware profits. (BTW: Saying "it's already paid for" is fine until you are trying to pay for R&D for the next version...pretty short sighted.)
To use a little fuzzy math, let's say Apple is twice as efficent as MS in developing and maintaining their OS (ie, MS pays twice as much as Apple to develop a particular feature, market share as no relevance in how much it costs). But MS currently has better than a 10:1 market share advantage. That means that Apple needs to charge 5 times as much (10/2) for each copy of OS X than MS charges for Vista in order to cover their development investment. They achieve that by the profit margins on the hardware sales, not by selling OS X itself.
Your point about additional iWork sales is a good one that I had not thought of before, but keep in mind that MobileMe already is PC-compatible, so no real advantage from Mac OS market share increase (ok, a little bit).
If it is to be a 'new' product. Adding touch wouldn't cut it.
My bets are on Apple TV (as in a real commodity item (which obviously means lower margins)) but with the added Apple shebang (ie. AppleTV built-in with added functionality Tivo like?).
Or what about a games console... tying in iPhones as game controllers?
I apologise, I did not realise that I wasn't permitted to disagree with people.
Was this OS X version 6 or OS X version 7 ?
C.
hehe, first of all there is no such thing as OS X version 6 or 7. I hope I don't burst your bubble but the "X" stands for 10. before that it was OS9, OS8, System 7, System 6.
And yes it was between system 6/7 through OS8/9 that the mac clones existed. And guess what, they sucked. The first thing that Jobs did when he came back to Apple was kill them off.
Look, it's just not going to happen. It doesn't make sense from a business standpoint. Basically everyone here (including me) has explained it very well. Nor does it make sense technologically.
I know that you would love to buy a cheap ass dell with OSX on it, but it's not happening anytime soon.
I bet they will launch an iPhone mini before Christmas.
Or/and an iPhone Pro....both to become number two in the smartphone segment after Nokia.
Thats what they want...
If they launch an iPhone mini and/or iPhone Pro it will be clear that they have complete mobile phone platform ready. That would be a shock for the Androids as well as for Nokia....would be double marketing strike:-)
By not having a DVD burner in the bottom-end MacBook, by having 2.1 GHz as the lowest-clocked processor option (lower clocked processors are much cheaper and offer the possibility of more attractive storage/RAM options*), by tying screen size to overall computing power, Apple has definitely "created an umbrella" under which competitors can rest.
* i.e., given the choice between 1.8 GHz machine with 250 GB HDD, 2GB RAM, DVD burner at $899 and a 2.1 GHz machine with 120 GB HDD, 1 GB RAM and a DVD/CD-RW combo drive at $1099, many will think the slower machine has a better balance of features.
I completely agree with that. Apple has worked itself into a corner with the way it increases processor speeds each revision at the expense of other features.
"Please explain cannibalization." The cannibalization comes not so much from someone offering a machine similar to something Apple currently offers in terms of features. I agree that Apple's designs would win out there. The cannibalization comes from someone offering a machine that Apple doesn't, such as a budget laptop.
Sorry, I still don't buy it. If someone wants a budget laptop that Apple do not make, they are not gonna buy an Apple. So no cannibalization takes place.
Cannibalization would only take place if Apple's hardware is not competitive. As was the case back in the 90s.
What I meant by "Its already paid for", is that Apple already funds OS X development based on its current locked model. Unlocking simply means you can charge less per customer.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wiggin
To use a little fuzzy math, let's say Apple is twice as efficent as MS in developing and maintaining their OS (ie, MS pays twice as much as Apple to develop a particular feature, market share as no relevance in how much it costs). But MS currently has better than a 10:1 market share advantage. That means that Apple needs to charge 5 times as much (10/2) for each copy of OS X than MS charges for Vista in order to cover their development investment.
I think that's a bit too fuzzy.
If OSX's market share tripled overnight, it wouldn't cost any extra to maintain OSX. But Apples revenues would go up.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wiggin
They achieve that by the profit margins on the hardware sales, not by selling OS X itself.
I don't think that is true, but let's imagine it is. You are saying that Apple's OS X development costs are massive, and that cost has to be borne by Apple hardware sales.
That would always put Apple hardware at a price disadvantage because a huge OS X tax would be levied on top. If that were true, Apple would have even more reason to license OS X because it would allow them to cut hardware prices.
Ok one more somewhat out of left field possibility, one that I've yet seen mentioned...
Rosetta for Windows Applications
This would allow Mac users to run native Windows applications on OS X.
The development costs of which would definately impact their earnings, but they would gain switchers in the long run and that will eventually break even or produce a comparatively small profit for continued development costs.
Most of the pieces are there software wise with the Wine project, they would just need to add a bit of Apple touch to it to make it more mainstream. Another possibility would be something built on virtualization technology, but you don't need to install a full fledged Windows install and have to maintain two operating systems.
That could be a real Windows killer, and one that would create a significant "transition" for PC users. It would also produce a significant opportunity for new sales in the business world.
What if it the "product transition" is an allusion to the mention of Apple going to put LED screens in all their Mac computers by the end of 2008?
Maybe the can finish this transition of going greener by the end of September, meaning new Cinema Displays, iMacs and MacBooks, as they still are not LED backlit.
Regarding the licensing: I hope not, but maybe it is happening and it will turn out good. Who knows.
And I don't think they will put touch screens into some Macs, if there is no accompanying OS. They can release touch screen Macs when Snow Leopard or whatever OS capable of touch is being released. It wouldn't make sense right now, at least for me.
I don't know about iPods or xMacs, as I don't lust for them right now. Only the new MacBook, with dedicated graphics would incite my hunger for a new Mac.
Ok one more somewhat out of left field possibility, one that I've yet seen mentioned...
Rosetta for Windows Applications
This would allow Mac users to run native Windows applications on OS X.
The development costs of which would definately impact their earnings, but they would gain switchers in the long run and that will eventually break even or produce a comparatively small profit for continued development costs.
Most of the pieces are there software wise with the Wine project, they would just need to add a bit of Apple touch to it to make it more mainstream. Another possibility would be something built on virtualization technology, but you don't need to install a full fledged Windows install and have to maintain two operating systems.
That could be a real Windows killer, and one that would create a significant "transition" for PC users. It would also produce a significant opportunity for new sales in the business world.
How would allowing the running of Windows apps natively in the Mac OS be a "Windows killer?" That could then open the door to Windows malware. Apple is pushing developers towards its own Cocoa API, away from Carbon, so why would they introduce a new API for running Windows apps? There are already a wealth of apps written for Mac OS X, including Microsoft's own Office suite (though it's horrible like everything they release for Mac users). There are many Mac apps that work better than the Windows' alternatives.
You can already run Windows on a Mac natively with Boot Camp and virtually through things like Parallels. Apple doesn't have to make Apple-ified versions of everything and they would get backlash from independent developers if they did. That's why Apple is doing so well in general: they have focus and....VISION. They don't throw things at the wall to see what sticks like Microsoft because...THEY DON'T HAVE THE MONEY TO WASTE.
We know Apple likes to control their designs, but they don't actually build them anymore...
Dell will sell anything that includes a Dell logo on it (PDAs, mp3 players, printers, etc...)...
Dell has probably the most streamlined mass manufacturing system for computers...
Dell re-packages drivers for their systems...
Apple licenses Dell to build a low-end Mac Mini (mini tower) replacement featuring Mac OS X . This system is cross-branded Dell/Apple and Dell provides the system support.
Apple wins from software/brand licensing and future software sales...
Dell wins with a product that captures both the Dell and Apple branding loyalty, boosts their profits from additional system sales, and can leverage the competition with Microsoft...
Apple also wins in that they crush the need for a hacked clone system...
Consumers win with a new low-cost entry into the world of Mac, a product they may not of considered before due to price or unfamilarity with Apple computers. But they know Dell and would be comfortable with that purchase. These would be consumers that wouldn't necessarily have bought an Apple computer otherwise...
Another Apple win, they don't need to pay for the R&D on the system...
The bridges burned between Steve Jobs and Michael Dell go back to us NeXT folks when we released WebObjects. Michael pulled some stunts that didn't sit well with Steve.
You won't see Steve making a licensing deal with DELL.
But Apple has had really bad experiences with licensing osx in the 90s, I don't think they want to go back there.
As a way of making fun of your mistake, I mischievously wrote...
"Was this OS X version 6 or OS X version 7 ? "
So then you said...
Quote:
Originally Posted by paprochy
hehe, first of all there is no such thing as OS X version 6 or 7. I hope I don't burst your bubble but the "X" stands for 10. before that it was OS9, OS8, System 7, System 6.
lol
Anyway...
Quote:
Originally Posted by paprochy
And yes it was between system 6/7 through OS8/9 that the mac clones existed. And guess what, they sucked. The first thing that Jobs did when he came back to Apple was kill them off.
Look, it's just not going to happen. It doesn't make sense from a business standpoint. Basically everyone here (including me) has explained it very well. Nor does it make sense technologically.
I know that you would love to buy a cheap ass dell with OSX on it, but it's not happening anytime soon.
You really ought to explain your points, instead of just writing assertions.
As for the clones, some of them sucked, but so did Apple hardware at the time. The clones were competing with Apple on its home PowerPC hardware. At that point in time Jobs *had* to kill off the clones because they were drinking Apple's milkshake.
But I don't know if you have noticed, but things have changed a bit since then.
Apple is now a powerful and successful company. It makes standard commodity PC hardware like everyone else. Everyone buys their chips from the same manufacturer. Everyone gets their kit glued together in the same Chinese factories.
Apple's hardware is differentiated by much higher design standards. It can then sell the computers at a higher premium and gets a better profit margin than most.
But there are computer hardware markets that Apple does not want to go into.
Now either Apple rolls over and hands that entire sector to Microsoft. Or it permits licensees to sell OS X pre installed on their hardware.
Business, dude, is war.
When Apple was a broken and ineffective hardware manufacturer, its only choice was to cease licensing to give it's uncompetitive hardware a fighting chance.
Apple is a much fitter company now. Microsoft is looking weak and flabby. A full-on assault on Vista couldn't be more timely. Apple would be able to cherry pick the best licensees and specify the right hardware to approve.
Comments
Think about it. A device that could be used wirelessly or by cable, it could control every computer in your home, via iphone remote or it's own multi-touch remote, it's a DVR, a link to your iTunes and fully internet capable via iphone/touch qwerty keyboard. It can link up with any cable/SAT or over the air broadcast. This has no competition and if they put a $299 price tag on it, who wouldn't buy this!
You heard it here first, I call it the iHome!
We know Apple likes to control their designs, but they don't actually build them anymore...
Dell will sell anything that includes a Dell logo on it (PDAs, mp3 players, printers, etc...)...
Dell has probably the most streamlined mass manufacturing system for computers...
Dell re-packages drivers for their systems...
Apple licenses Dell to build a low-end Mac Mini (mini tower) replacement featuring Mac OS X . This system is cross-branded Dell/Apple and Dell provides the system support.
Apple wins from software/brand licensing and future software sales...
Dell wins with a product that captures both the Dell and Apple branding loyalty, boosts their profits from additional system sales, and can leverage the competition with Microsoft...
Apple also wins in that they crush the need for a hacked clone system...
Consumers win with a new low-cost entry into the world of Mac, a product they may not of considered before due to price or unfamilarity with Apple computers. But they know Dell and would be comfortable with that purchase. These would be consumers that wouldn't necessarily have bought an Apple computer otherwise...
Another Apple win, they don't need to pay for the R&D on the system...
It's going to be new cinema displays with built-in iSight and Apple TV. That would be a truly awesome product.
with touch screen too - bring it on!
Folks are buying $500 atom-based netbooks and installing OS X on them.
The performance isn't too bad either.
But you gotta face it, you can't launch one of these without killing the Air.
Nonsense. The eeePC and its ilk are not in the same category as the Air. Who in their right mind, when what they want is a tiny laptop with 10" or smaller screen actually goes and gets an Air? Not many people.
If you are buying an Air, you're not interested in minuscule laptops. However, there are plenty of other people who are interested in minuscule laptops so it might be worth Apple making one.
or
All notebooks to go multi-touch.
Speaking of overstatement, the high price of retail copies of Windows is irrelevant, because almost no one buys it that way. Microsoft charges major manufacturers (that buy in bulk, as you say) about $40 a license, depending on version. Apple could easily match that price.
I don't want to go off-topic talking about Windows OEM licensing, so my point is that if Apple were to license OSX, their sale of the license -whether it's $20 or $100 per machine- is mostly profit and is tantamount to the profit Apple makes off a hardware sale. Especially if done in bulk.
Again, I don't think this is likely. I'd give it about a 5% chance of happening, but dismissing it because of what happened 15 years ago is silly.
We are both agreeing that it's unlikely, but for argument's sake...
What do you think is the average selling price of Macs? Let's say it's $1500, I think that's a reasonable estimate. Apple's typical margin is 30%. That's $500 profit for each Mac sold...a far cry from "$20 or $100" for OEM licensing! (Admittedly, I think their Mac margin is lower than their overall margin, but the result is the same.) Every Mac clone that is purchased instead of Apple hardware is a significant loss to Apple unless they charge at least, say, $200 for the OEM license. Now that $600 budget PC becomes a $760 Mac clone ($200 - $40 for Vista). I think you lose a lot of appeal with that.
Apple have already made OS X - It's paid for already. The only question is, how should they now make money from it?
If Apple licensed OS X to Sony - and charged Sony $100 per OEM copy - that's $100 additional revenue. And another $100 if the customer buys iLife.
Please explain cannibalization. Why should Apple automatically lose hardware sales if this happened? Are you saying that Mac hardware isn't good enough? Are you saying people wouldn't buy Mac hardware if they could buy a Vaio? I happen to believe that Mac hardware can stand on its own feet.
Now turn your question around. How much money does Apple lose by only being able to sell iWork, MobileMe and all its SOFTWARE products only to Mac hardware. If OS X had 30% market share. How much more software could Apple sell? And how many more developers would be attracted to the platform?
C.
"Please explain cannibalization." The cannibalization comes not so much from someone offering a machine similar to something Apple currently offers in terms of features. I agree that Apple's designs would win out there. The cannibalization comes from someone offering a machine that Apple doesn't, such as a budget laptop. A $700 Mac clone would most certainly eat into Apple's MacBook sales. A $1000 Mac clone minittower would most certainly eat into iMac sales. It's just an opinion, but I think Apple would have to set the OEM license too high to make up for thost lost hardware profits. (BTW: Saying "it's already paid for" is fine until you are trying to pay for R&D for the next version...pretty short sighted.)
To use a little fuzzy math, let's say Apple is twice as efficent as MS in developing and maintaining their OS (ie, MS pays twice as much as Apple to develop a particular feature, market share as no relevance in how much it costs). But MS currently has better than a 10:1 market share advantage. That means that Apple needs to charge 5 times as much (10/2) for each copy of OS X than MS charges for Vista in order to cover their development investment. They achieve that by the profit margins on the hardware sales, not by selling OS X itself.
Your point about additional iWork sales is a good one that I had not thought of before, but keep in mind that MobileMe already is PC-compatible, so no real advantage from Mac OS market share increase (ok, a little bit).
My bets are on Apple TV (as in a real commodity item (which obviously means lower margins)) but with the added Apple shebang (ie. AppleTV built-in with added functionality Tivo like?).
Or what about a games console... tying in iPhones as game controllers?
Quote:
I apologise, I did not realise that I wasn't permitted to disagree with people.
Was this OS X version 6 or OS X version 7 ?
C.
hehe, first of all there is no such thing as OS X version 6 or 7. I hope I don't burst your bubble but the "X" stands for 10. before that it was OS9, OS8, System 7, System 6.
And yes it was between system 6/7 through OS8/9 that the mac clones existed. And guess what, they sucked. The first thing that Jobs did when he came back to Apple was kill them off.
Look, it's just not going to happen. It doesn't make sense from a business standpoint. Basically everyone here (including me) has explained it very well. Nor does it make sense technologically.
I know that you would love to buy a cheap ass dell with OSX on it, but it's not happening anytime soon.
Or/and an iPhone Pro....both to become number two in the smartphone segment after Nokia.
Thats what they want...
If they launch an iPhone mini and/or iPhone Pro it will be clear that they have complete mobile phone platform ready. That would be a shock for the Androids as well as for Nokia....would be double marketing strike:-)
cheers
ris natar
By not having a DVD burner in the bottom-end MacBook, by having 2.1 GHz as the lowest-clocked processor option (lower clocked processors are much cheaper and offer the possibility of more attractive storage/RAM options*), by tying screen size to overall computing power, Apple has definitely "created an umbrella" under which competitors can rest.
* i.e., given the choice between 1.8 GHz machine with 250 GB HDD, 2GB RAM, DVD burner at $899 and a 2.1 GHz machine with 120 GB HDD, 1 GB RAM and a DVD/CD-RW combo drive at $1099, many will think the slower machine has a better balance of features.
I completely agree with that. Apple has worked itself into a corner with the way it increases processor speeds each revision at the expense of other features.
"Please explain cannibalization." The cannibalization comes not so much from someone offering a machine similar to something Apple currently offers in terms of features. I agree that Apple's designs would win out there. The cannibalization comes from someone offering a machine that Apple doesn't, such as a budget laptop.
Sorry, I still don't buy it. If someone wants a budget laptop that Apple do not make, they are not gonna buy an Apple. So no cannibalization takes place.
Cannibalization would only take place if Apple's hardware is not competitive. As was the case back in the 90s.
What I meant by "Its already paid for", is that Apple already funds OS X development based on its current locked model. Unlocking simply means you can charge less per customer.
To use a little fuzzy math, let's say Apple is twice as efficent as MS in developing and maintaining their OS (ie, MS pays twice as much as Apple to develop a particular feature, market share as no relevance in how much it costs). But MS currently has better than a 10:1 market share advantage. That means that Apple needs to charge 5 times as much (10/2) for each copy of OS X than MS charges for Vista in order to cover their development investment.
I think that's a bit too fuzzy.
If OSX's market share tripled overnight, it wouldn't cost any extra to maintain OSX. But Apples revenues would go up.
They achieve that by the profit margins on the hardware sales, not by selling OS X itself.
I don't think that is true, but let's imagine it is. You are saying that Apple's OS X development costs are massive, and that cost has to be borne by Apple hardware sales.
That would always put Apple hardware at a price disadvantage because a huge OS X tax would be levied on top. If that were true, Apple would have even more reason to license OS X because it would allow them to cut hardware prices.
C.
Rosetta for Windows Applications
This would allow Mac users to run native Windows applications on OS X.
The development costs of which would definately impact their earnings, but they would gain switchers in the long run and that will eventually break even or produce a comparatively small profit for continued development costs.
Most of the pieces are there software wise with the Wine project, they would just need to add a bit of Apple touch to it to make it more mainstream. Another possibility would be something built on virtualization technology, but you don't need to install a full fledged Windows install and have to maintain two operating systems.
That could be a real Windows killer, and one that would create a significant "transition" for PC users. It would also produce a significant opportunity for new sales in the business world.
Maybe the can finish this transition of going greener by the end of September, meaning new Cinema Displays, iMacs and MacBooks, as they still are not LED backlit.
Regarding the licensing: I hope not, but maybe it is happening and it will turn out good. Who knows.
And I don't think they will put touch screens into some Macs, if there is no accompanying OS. They can release touch screen Macs when Snow Leopard or whatever OS capable of touch is being released. It wouldn't make sense right now, at least for me.
I don't know about iPods or xMacs, as I don't lust for them right now. Only the new MacBook, with dedicated graphics would incite my hunger for a new Mac.
Have an excellent day.
Ok one more somewhat out of left field possibility, one that I've yet seen mentioned...
Rosetta for Windows Applications
This would allow Mac users to run native Windows applications on OS X.
The development costs of which would definately impact their earnings, but they would gain switchers in the long run and that will eventually break even or produce a comparatively small profit for continued development costs.
Most of the pieces are there software wise with the Wine project, they would just need to add a bit of Apple touch to it to make it more mainstream. Another possibility would be something built on virtualization technology, but you don't need to install a full fledged Windows install and have to maintain two operating systems.
That could be a real Windows killer, and one that would create a significant "transition" for PC users. It would also produce a significant opportunity for new sales in the business world.
How would allowing the running of Windows apps natively in the Mac OS be a "Windows killer?" That could then open the door to Windows malware. Apple is pushing developers towards its own Cocoa API, away from Carbon, so why would they introduce a new API for running Windows apps? There are already a wealth of apps written for Mac OS X, including Microsoft's own Office suite (though it's horrible like everything they release for Mac users). There are many Mac apps that work better than the Windows' alternatives.
You can already run Windows on a Mac natively with Boot Camp and virtually through things like Parallels. Apple doesn't have to make Apple-ified versions of everything and they would get backlash from independent developers if they did. That's why Apple is doing so well in general: they have focus and....VISION. They don't throw things at the wall to see what sticks like Microsoft because...THEY DON'T HAVE THE MONEY TO WASTE.
...Heck, it is better to let go "Pro" moniker and have MacBooks in different configuration and prices...
I think this will be the core of the transition...
How about a twist on the OS X licensing gambit...
We know Apple likes to control their designs, but they don't actually build them anymore...
Dell will sell anything that includes a Dell logo on it (PDAs, mp3 players, printers, etc...)...
Dell has probably the most streamlined mass manufacturing system for computers...
Dell re-packages drivers for their systems...
Apple licenses Dell to build a low-end Mac Mini (mini tower) replacement featuring Mac OS X . This system is cross-branded Dell/Apple and Dell provides the system support.
Apple wins from software/brand licensing and future software sales...
Dell wins with a product that captures both the Dell and Apple branding loyalty, boosts their profits from additional system sales, and can leverage the competition with Microsoft...
Apple also wins in that they crush the need for a hacked clone system...
Consumers win with a new low-cost entry into the world of Mac, a product they may not of considered before due to price or unfamilarity with Apple computers. But they know Dell and would be comfortable with that purchase. These would be consumers that wouldn't necessarily have bought an Apple computer otherwise...
Another Apple win, they don't need to pay for the R&D on the system...
The bridges burned between Steve Jobs and Michael Dell go back to us NeXT folks when we released WebObjects. Michael pulled some stunts that didn't sit well with Steve.
You won't see Steve making a licensing deal with DELL.
But Apple has had really bad experiences with licensing osx in the 90s, I don't think they want to go back there.
As a way of making fun of your mistake, I mischievously wrote...
"Was this OS X version 6 or OS X version 7 ? "
So then you said...
hehe, first of all there is no such thing as OS X version 6 or 7. I hope I don't burst your bubble but the "X" stands for 10. before that it was OS9, OS8, System 7, System 6.
lol
Anyway...
And yes it was between system 6/7 through OS8/9 that the mac clones existed. And guess what, they sucked. The first thing that Jobs did when he came back to Apple was kill them off.
Look, it's just not going to happen. It doesn't make sense from a business standpoint. Basically everyone here (including me) has explained it very well. Nor does it make sense technologically.
I know that you would love to buy a cheap ass dell with OSX on it, but it's not happening anytime soon.
You really ought to explain your points, instead of just writing assertions.
As for the clones, some of them sucked, but so did Apple hardware at the time. The clones were competing with Apple on its home PowerPC hardware. At that point in time Jobs *had* to kill off the clones because they were drinking Apple's milkshake.
But I don't know if you have noticed, but things have changed a bit since then.
Apple is now a powerful and successful company. It makes standard commodity PC hardware like everyone else. Everyone buys their chips from the same manufacturer. Everyone gets their kit glued together in the same Chinese factories.
Apple's hardware is differentiated by much higher design standards. It can then sell the computers at a higher premium and gets a better profit margin than most.
But there are computer hardware markets that Apple does not want to go into.
Now either Apple rolls over and hands that entire sector to Microsoft. Or it permits licensees to sell OS X pre installed on their hardware.
Business, dude, is war.
When Apple was a broken and ineffective hardware manufacturer, its only choice was to cease licensing to give it's uncompetitive hardware a fighting chance.
Apple is a much fitter company now. Microsoft is looking weak and flabby. A full-on assault on Vista couldn't be more timely. Apple would be able to cherry pick the best licensees and specify the right hardware to approve.
Times have changed.
C.