Hmm, forgot about the Centris. Those were introduced during the mid 90's by John Sculley's successor, Michael Spindler, who apparently tried to imitate Sony's computers by releasing ranges of Mac hardware under a variety of vaguely Latin sounding names–Quadra, Centris, and Performa–and a series of confusing, nondescript model numbers. Haha, and he's responsible for Apple's first and last failed attempt to license the Mac OS to other hardware makers, including APS, Bandai, DayStar, Motorola, Pioneer, Power Computing, Radius, and UMAX. Big surprise.
I'm paraphrasing from an RDM article, which also notes:
That effort skimmed off the cream of Apple’s profitability and handed it to the cloners, leaving Apple to service the low end of the market at Sears with its Performas while also funding the development of nearly profitless Mac System Software to support an increasingly wide range of hardware.
Right! There are plenty of consumers out there that don't give a sh*t about style. They're called Dell customers. These beige tin boxes that Mac fanboys love to bash have a place (a very big place, in fact) in the market.
What I've found is that consumers who use Macs fall in love with the OS. Yes, Apple's industrial design rocks. No doubt. But there are a lot of people who put computers next to their desks and don't care what they look like.
Yes, precisely! And that market is not one Apple can, nor wants to "conquer," or compete in. More importantly, they don't need to. They can still be extremely successful with the consumer space that's frustrated by Windows, in entertainment production, higher education (and increasingly, K-12), science, and of course, the iPod and the new iPhone WiFi mobile platforms are highly desirable, regardless of the buyer's computer operating system.
While the idea of rental software is interesting, are you saying that Fairplay is ineffective? Also... I don't think a security chip would be a substantial cost.
If Apple does allow this kind of model some day, it's not just good for rental. You could BUY something like FilemakerPro and register it to your MobileMe account - so that you can move between machines and sync your dashboard apps & taskbar - and even the actual applications themselves.
I think chip-supported rental software would be needed to get the big boys in software to offer their products on that basis. They'd be too wary otherwise. I'm glad you can envisage another use for such a chip--I think it would be wonderful if Apple offered it. (It would also benefit them, by encouraging more software vendors to port their products--since there'd be a low marketing expense. Products would be downloaded free from an Apple Ap Store.)
I agree it's hard to see that a chip would add much cost. But maybe what they've done is license someone's anti-virus, anti-malware code and bundled it, perhaps by putting it on a chip. Or maybe onto an unused "core." I like the idea of some sort of bundled software because it's the sort of thing that meets the constraints of the Apple exec's statement. It's transitional (a product enhancement) that applies across a major product range and that will differentiate Apple from competitors (cloners in particular I imagine), and that will be hard or impossible to copy (especially if they've got an exclusive deal with the software vendor). Also, I think a bundled software deal would be a lot easier to keep secret than any sort of major hardware upgrade across all product lines.
No other Apple product can come close in their arsenal that would affect margins that much. If you look at the future the Moble internet device will be like a wallet in the future. Apple wants this everywhere. I think IPod Touch becomes the only Ipod execept for maybe shuffe. Prediction: huge price drop to make IPod Touch mainstream. 8GB $99 16GB $149 32GB $199 64GB $249. Game over.
No other Apple product can come close in their arsenal that would affect margins that much. If you look at the future the Moble internet device will be like a wallet in the future. Apple wants this everywhere. I think IPod Touch becomes the only Ipod execept for maybe shuffe. Prediction: huge price drop to make IPod Touch mainstream. 8GB $99 16GB $149 32GB $199 64GB $249. Game over.
What, so we can't have a Nano sized touch? What was that scifi show where the guy had a mainframe computer hidden in his credit card...?
I wrote this yesterday and something stuffed up.. I somehow still have the post ... with some updates
Speaking about an iTablet - I think (unlike azhoops) that Apple will be having trouble with the iPod Touch.
It all comes down to the "subsidised" iPhone versus an "unsubsidised iPod Touch". Naturally the iPhone costs more for Apple to produce than the iPod touch. The maths was easy last year - $100 extra for an iPhone versus the iPod Touch of the same size. Now, it appears that the RRP for an iPhone 3G would be about $800 if it was unlocked and off contract - but it's on contract and selling for $299. In some countries its free on plans, others have higher costs. Experience tells us people don't think about the monthly fee as much as the upfront cost.
So to many people the iPod Touch looks expensive now... why not get the iPhone? I don't know if the touch will survive once the iPhone shortages are handled (let alone be able to replace the entire iPod range as Azhoops thinks). One answer is for Apple to make the touch cheaper - though then they'll lose iPhone sales and AT&T is rewarding them nicely (and it doesn't really lock out competitors... does it?). The other is for them to re-invent the iPod Touch - make it bigger (either 1.5 times the size or double), add pen input, but still use the iPhone OS. They could sell that as a significantly different product to the iPhone, a different market, but they would have to price it at a much lower margin to make it appealing, especially in the early days.
The Tablet could be the mystery product. It is a transition product (from the iPod Touch), it would require a lower cost to gain traction, and if Apple did it right it could sell enough to make an impact on margin. I think the possibility is small, but it's there.
The other is for them to re-invent the iPod Touch - make it bigger (either 1.5 times the size or double), add pen input, but still use the iPhone OS. They could sell that as a significantly different product to the iPhone, a different market, but they would have to price it at a much lower margin to make it appealing, especially in the early days.
no, no ,no. the whole point of the iphone-ipod touch is there is no pen/stylus or whatever, a pen ruins the beauty of it but bigger maybe. i agree that a bigger ipod touch would be transitionary but there still is the whole thing about shutting out the market. ipod already has 90% of the market. what more do they need to shut out? i think the product is going to be elsewhere.
Yes, precisely! And that market is not one Apple can, nor wants to "conquer," or compete in. More importantly, they don't need to. They can still be extremely successful with the consumer space that's frustrated by Windows, in entertainment production, higher education (and increasingly, K-12), science, and of course, the iPod and the new iPhone WiFi mobile platforms are highly desirable, regardless of the buyer's computer operating system.
So what you are saying is..
"For all those millions of consumers out there, without the taste or decency to purchase proper Apple equipment. It should be their fate to endure the horrors of Windows. And Microsoft is entitled to their filthy tasteless cash. And we have a better MP3 player to boot!" We need them not!"
I counter with...
"Apple's hardware sales are solid, and its product range is profitable. That profit is not based on an OS X lock-in but is because its hardware is good enough to hold its own in the market. We all agree it would make no sense to go down-market with hardware.
But..
Restricting OS X to Apple-only hardware is now a bad thing. It is limiting Apple's growth as a software company. And it hands a de-facto victory to Microsoft."
At this precise moment in time, the dis-satisfaction with Microsoft amongst hardware vendors is at a peak. Apple could negotiate very favorable licensing terms because hardware manufacturers are simply desperate to give Microsoft a bloody nose.
A straight OS-X vs. Vista showdown would be much more interesting if Apple didn't have one hand tied behind its back.
There's only one reason to hold back and that is the cannibalization argument.
And I don't buy it. In fact, in time, if Apples OS share increased, its hardware sales would be pulled up too. As long as they don't go back to the Centris. (cough Macbook)
From everything i've read on this and other websites that seek to predict Apple's next moves, i think the product transition will consist of the following:
New MacBook Pros (possibly including a 13" version)
New MacBooks (sold at a sub-$1,000 price)
new MacMini (also sold at an attractive price)
A further price cut for the MacBook Air
I don't believe a tablet PC (MacFolio) will arrive before January 2009.
I don't believe that SSDs are yet ready for prime time, but I certainly expect them to be added as cost options to most product lines.
I don't think that the MacBook Pros will come in at a price below existing models in case they are perceived to be inferior to the existing models.
i believe that what will most enable Apple to drive unit sales is by offering its new MacBook and MacMini at extremely attractive prices. in other words they will sacrifice margin to achieve volume. I don't think that either model will compromised in terms of spec.
I base these observations on only my own opinion not on any facts.
"For all those millions of consumers out there, without the taste or decency to purchase proper Apple equipment. It should be their fate to endure the horrors of Windows. And Microsoft is entitled to their filthy tasteless cash. And we have a better MP3 player to boot!" We need them not!"
I counter with...
"Apple's hardware sales are solid, and its product range is profitable. That profit is not based on an OS X lock-in but is because its hardware is good enough to hold its own in the market. We all agree it would make no sense to go down-market with hardware.
But..
Restricting OS X to Apple-only hardware is now a bad thing. It is limiting Apple's growth as a software company. And it hands a de-facto victory to Microsoft."
At this precise moment in time, the dis-satisfaction with Microsoft amongst hardware vendors is at a peak. Apple could negotiate very favorable licensing terms because hardware manufacturers are simply desperate to give Microsoft a bloody nose.
A straight OS-X vs. Vista showdown would be much more interesting if Apple didn't have one hand tied behind its back.
There's only one reason to hold back and that is the cannibalization argument.
And I don't buy it. In fact, in time, if Apples OS share increased, its hardware sales would be pulled up too. As long as they don't go back to the Centris. (cough Macbook)
C.
I don't believe Apple is a software company. Instead, I believe they are fundamentally a hardware company that uses superior software to help differentiate their products.
Alright... anyone can make the above statement but here's why I think it to be true:
1) Apple has moved away from software in recent years. They virtually spun off Claris, killed AppleWorks, and never really promoted the Next software they obtained (WebObjects?).
2) Apple really doesn't make any Windows software despite the belief that they could easily do so. There are no Windows versions of Final Cut Pro, Aperature, etc. If they were fundamentally a software company, wouldn't they sell Windows software like almost every other software company? I don't include Safari or QuickTime because they are free.
3) The Windows software that they do make is generally all oriented toward only working with their hardware offerings. I'm speaking of iTunes here.
"For all those millions of consumers out there, without the taste or decency to purchase proper Apple equipment. It should be their fate to endure the horrors of Windows. And Microsoft is entitled to their filthy tasteless cash. And we have a better MP3 player to boot!" We need them not!"
I counter with...
"Apple's hardware sales are solid, and its product range is profitable. That profit is not based on an OS X lock-in but is because its hardware is good enough to hold its own in the market. We all agree it would make no sense to go down-market with hardware.
But..
Restricting OS X to Apple-only hardware is now a bad thing. It is limiting Apple's growth as a software company. And it hands a de-facto victory to Microsoft."
......
C.
Quote:
I don't believe Apple is a software company. Instead, I believe they are fundamentally a hardware company that uses superior software to help differentiate their products.
There's no doubt that Apple has a very extensive software team(s). Unlike other hardware companies like Dell, which don't really do any software R&D. After all Apple does not only make a very complex and advanced OS, they also make an array of consumer and pro apps. So to say that Apple is in every way a hardware company (with some nice software as a bonus) is a hyperbole. In practice Apple is by all means a software/hardware company which basically deliver a perfect marriage of the two as a single kick ass product.
But in the business context it looks a bit different. This is the interesting part. From a business standpoint Apple is a hardware company.
Let's just look at Final Cut Studio as an example. It's easy for me to talk about this because this is the business I am in. Now, Final Cut Studio is an incredibly powerful software package, at this point it's the industry standard for commercial video production, it no longer rivals Avid, it's passed it miles ago. In addition, some of the components of this suit where bought and re developed as apple apps. Like Color for example, this program went for somewhere near 10,000 bucks before apple bought it. Now it comes as part of a $1,200 package (along with all the other FCP apps).
Anyone would say that this is just way too cheap. How on earth is Apple making any money with this? Easy, it's on the hardware. Because after all, you need their $3500 workstation to run FCP.
Let's just look at Final Cut Studio as an example. It's easy for me to talk about this because this is the business I am in. Now, Final Cut Studio is an incredibly powerful software package, at this point it's the industry standard for commercial video production, it no longer rivals Avid, it's passed it miles ago. In addition, some of the components of this suit where bought and re developed as apple apps. Like Color for example, this program went for somewhere near 10,000 bucks before apple bought it. Now it comes as part of a $1,200 package (along with all the other FCP apps).
Anyone would say that this is just way too cheap. How on earth is Apple making any money with this? Easy, it's on the hardware. Because after all, you need their $3500 workstation to run FCP.
Do you catch my drift?
Your argument is better thought out than the others. But not correct. You can run Final Cut on an iMac. It will even run on a Mac Mini.
But as a pro, you'd know that if you want to run FCS, you really need a Mac Pro.
Even with OS licensing, Apple would still get the hardware sale. Some people buy MacPros to run Windows and Linux. There's no need to strong-arm its customers by locking them into its hardware.
And in the time it takes one professional to think about how many cores he needs, Best Buy have sold a hundred laptops and with each one send a chunk of cash to Redmond.
Again this boils down to cannibalization. "If Apple licensed OS X, hardware sales would migrate to better-value non-Apple hardware." or "The only reason people pay good money for that overpriced Apple hardware is to get their hands on OS X"
We know that isn't true. Apple sales *increased* when customers gained the option of running Windows.
Your argument is better thought out than the others. But not correct. You can run Final Cut on an iMac. It will even run on a Mac Mini.
But as a pro, you'd know that if you want to run FCS, you really need a Mac Pro.
Even with OS licensing, Apple would still get the hardware sale. Some people buy MacPros to run Windows and Linux. There's no need to strong-arm its customers by locking them into its hardware.
And in the time it takes one professional to think about how many cores he needs, Best Buy have sold a hundred laptops and with each one send a chunk of cash to Redmond.
Again this boils down to cannibalization. "If Apple licensed OS X, hardware sales would migrate to better-value non-Apple hardware." or "The only reason people pay good money for that overpriced Apple hardware is to get their hands on OS X"
We know that isn't true. Apple sales *increased* when customers gained the option of running Windows.
C.
That still doesn't take into account the nightmare it would be to actually get OSX to run on all the 3rd party hardware out there. You said that the OS is already paid for, so why not just sell it off to other platforms as well. The truth is that it would cost a lot of money to make OSX universal. I'm no software engineer, but feel free to ask one, I'm sure he'll confirm, that it's not just a matter of adding in a few drivers and we're good to go. I honestly think that Apple would pour more money into r&d into OSX "universal" than it would make selling it. And at the end of the day, end up selling an inferior product, therefore damaging it's image as a sort of upper class/elite company.
You keep arguing that apple hardware is doing great. Well, you're right, so why not continue pushing those sales instead of trying to push other peoples hardware and possibly losing tons of money. So this is what apple will continue to do (imo), continue to sell more and more hardware, and continue to make more and more money by doing so.
You also have to keep in mind that Apple aren't out there to kill MS. They are out there to make money. So they really don't care if MS has a huge market share in operating systems, they don't care if all those poor saps have to settle for vista when they buy $600 best buy notebooks, as far as they are concerned they are making more and more money just by producing and selling their own hardware/software package.
That still doesn't take into account the nightmare it would be to actually get OSX to run on all the 3rd party hardware out there. You said that the OS is already paid for, so why not just sell it off to other platforms as well. The truth is that it would cost a lot of money to make OSX universal.
Apple would be crazy to launch OS X as a universal OS.
But there'd be nothing wrong with licensing EFI-equipped hardware which was essentially just an Apple reference design. It wouldn't cost Apple a penny. In fact a "Made for OS-X" sticker would also make money for Cupertino.
If you hadn't noticed, there's a ton of amateurs who already have OS X running on recent hardware.
One mistake that Microsoft made was greed. In order to accommodate the vast unwashed mess of all hardware vendors, Microsoft permitted unsigned drivers to pollute their OS.
The result was an unstable and sluggish OS because the driver for a Taiwanese sound board was incompatible with the Korean USB hub.
If Apple avoided this mistake, OS X on third party hardware would be dramatically more stable than Windows.
Apple would be crazy to launch OS X as a universal OS.
But there'd be nothing wrong with licensing EFI-equipped hardware which was essentially just an Apple reference design. It wouldn't cost Apple a penny. In fact a "Made for OS-X" sticker would also make money for Cupertino.
If you hadn't noticed, there's a ton of amateurs who already have OS X running on recent hardware.
One mistake that Microsoft made was greed. In order to accommodate the vast unwashed mess of all hardware vendors, Microsoft permitted unsigned drivers to pollute their OS.
The result was an unstable and sluggish OS because the driver for a Taiwanese sound board was incompatible with the Korean USB hub.
If Apple avoided this mistake, OS X on third party hardware would be dramatically more stable than Windows.
C.
Ok. So if apple can't make more money in volume by making OSX available on anything, then why would they lisence only to Dell or HP in a limited fashion, if they can just do the same exact thing on their own, effectively cutting out the big ugly sore of a thumb middle man?
Without getting myself into this argument again... ... hopefully
Quote:
Originally Posted by paprochy
That still doesn't take into account the nightmare it would be to actually get OSX to run on all the 3rd party hardware out there.
If Apple only supported HP & Dell computers, they'd cover a huge percentage (more than 70%... I don't remember the figure). If they only supported a subset of those (say sub $1000 desktops) then they make things easier again.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Carniphage
there'd be nothing wrong with licensing EFI-equipped hardware which was essentially just an Apple reference design. It wouldn't cost Apple a penny. In fact a "Made for OS-X" sticker would also make money for Cupertino.
That is also true.
Not saying they should or shouldn't - there are arguments both ways, advantages and disadvantages to both.
Comments
the new product is a touch screen keyboard.
The reason it's also a transition is that people will need snow lepard to make it work.
The reason snow leapod is not going to appear much different is that the main addition will be a behind the scenes addition of touch control of the os
The reduced profit margin is to help people take up the new keyboard knowing that it will be substatially dearer than a standard keyboard and mouse
My guess at a name would be iSlate
It will also feature inkwell for written input and act as a basic graphics tablet
good idea, but snow leopord isn't coming out until next summer. this is a new product for september
No, the Centris 610 sucked the day I bought it.
Hmm, forgot about the Centris. Those were introduced during the mid 90's by John Sculley's successor, Michael Spindler, who apparently tried to imitate Sony's computers by releasing ranges of Mac hardware under a variety of vaguely Latin sounding names–Quadra, Centris, and Performa–and a series of confusing, nondescript model numbers. Haha, and he's responsible for Apple's first and last failed attempt to license the Mac OS to other hardware makers, including APS, Bandai, DayStar, Motorola, Pioneer, Power Computing, Radius, and UMAX.
I'm paraphrasing from an RDM article, which also notes:
That effort skimmed off the cream of Apple’s profitability and handed it to the cloners, leaving Apple to service the low end of the market at Sears with its Performas while also funding the development of nearly profitless Mac System Software to support an increasingly wide range of hardware.
Link:
http://www.roughlydrafted.com/2007/0...-x-on-powerpc/
Right! There are plenty of consumers out there that don't give a sh*t about style. They're called Dell customers. These beige tin boxes that Mac fanboys love to bash have a place (a very big place, in fact) in the market.
What I've found is that consumers who use Macs fall in love with the OS. Yes, Apple's industrial design rocks. No doubt. But there are a lot of people who put computers next to their desks and don't care what they look like.
Yes, precisely!
Anyone consider that this might not refer to an imminent product release? Like... maybe 6 months from now?
While the idea of rental software is interesting, are you saying that Fairplay is ineffective? Also... I don't think a security chip would be a substantial cost.
If Apple does allow this kind of model some day, it's not just good for rental. You could BUY something like FilemakerPro and register it to your MobileMe account - so that you can move between machines and sync your dashboard apps & taskbar - and even the actual applications themselves.
I think chip-supported rental software would be needed to get the big boys in software to offer their products on that basis. They'd be too wary otherwise. I'm glad you can envisage another use for such a chip--I think it would be wonderful if Apple offered it. (It would also benefit them, by encouraging more software vendors to port their products--since there'd be a low marketing expense. Products would be downloaded free from an Apple Ap Store.)
I agree it's hard to see that a chip would add much cost. But maybe what they've done is license someone's anti-virus, anti-malware code and bundled it, perhaps by putting it on a chip. Or maybe onto an unused "core." I like the idea of some sort of bundled software because it's the sort of thing that meets the constraints of the Apple exec's statement. It's transitional (a product enhancement) that applies across a major product range and that will differentiate Apple from competitors (cloners in particular I imagine), and that will be hard or impossible to copy (especially if they've got an exclusive deal with the software vendor). Also, I think a bundled software deal would be a lot easier to keep secret than any sort of major hardware upgrade across all product lines.
No other Apple product can come close in their arsenal that would affect margins that much. If you look at the future the Moble internet device will be like a wallet in the future. Apple wants this everywhere. I think IPod Touch becomes the only Ipod execept for maybe shuffe. Prediction: huge price drop to make IPod Touch mainstream. 8GB $99 16GB $149 32GB $199 64GB $249. Game over.
What, so we can't have a Nano sized touch? What was that scifi show where the guy had a mainframe computer hidden in his credit card...?
Speaking about an iTablet - I think (unlike azhoops) that Apple will be having trouble with the iPod Touch.
It all comes down to the "subsidised" iPhone versus an "unsubsidised iPod Touch". Naturally the iPhone costs more for Apple to produce than the iPod touch. The maths was easy last year - $100 extra for an iPhone versus the iPod Touch of the same size. Now, it appears that the RRP for an iPhone 3G would be about $800 if it was unlocked and off contract - but it's on contract and selling for $299. In some countries its free on plans, others have higher costs. Experience tells us people don't think about the monthly fee as much as the upfront cost.
So to many people the iPod Touch looks expensive now... why not get the iPhone? I don't know if the touch will survive once the iPhone shortages are handled (let alone be able to replace the entire iPod range as Azhoops thinks). One answer is for Apple to make the touch cheaper - though then they'll lose iPhone sales and AT&T is rewarding them nicely (and it doesn't really lock out competitors... does it?). The other is for them to re-invent the iPod Touch - make it bigger (either 1.5 times the size or double), add pen input, but still use the iPhone OS. They could sell that as a significantly different product to the iPhone, a different market, but they would have to price it at a much lower margin to make it appealing, especially in the early days.
The Tablet could be the mystery product. It is a transition product (from the iPod Touch), it would require a lower cost to gain traction, and if Apple did it right it could sell enough to make an impact on margin. I think the possibility is small, but it's there.
The other is for them to re-invent the iPod Touch - make it bigger (either 1.5 times the size or double), add pen input, but still use the iPhone OS. They could sell that as a significantly different product to the iPhone, a different market, but they would have to price it at a much lower margin to make it appealing, especially in the early days.
no, no ,no. the whole point of the iphone-ipod touch is there is no pen/stylus or whatever, a pen ruins the beauty of it but bigger maybe. i agree that a bigger ipod touch would be transitionary but there still is the whole thing about shutting out the market. ipod already has 90% of the market. what more do they need to shut out? i think the product is going to be elsewhere.
usage of SSD, TimeCapsule/'Homeserver' and The Cloud ..
Yes, precisely!
So what you are saying is..
"For all those millions of consumers out there, without the taste or decency to purchase proper Apple equipment. It should be their fate to endure the horrors of Windows. And Microsoft is entitled to their filthy tasteless cash. And we have a better MP3 player to boot!" We need them not!"
I counter with...
"Apple's hardware sales are solid, and its product range is profitable. That profit is not based on an OS X lock-in but is because its hardware is good enough to hold its own in the market. We all agree it would make no sense to go down-market with hardware.
But..
Restricting OS X to Apple-only hardware is now a bad thing. It is limiting Apple's growth as a software company. And it hands a de-facto victory to Microsoft."
At this precise moment in time, the dis-satisfaction with Microsoft amongst hardware vendors is at a peak. Apple could negotiate very favorable licensing terms because hardware manufacturers are simply desperate to give Microsoft a bloody nose.
A straight OS-X vs. Vista showdown would be much more interesting if Apple didn't have one hand tied behind its back.
There's only one reason to hold back and that is the cannibalization argument.
And I don't buy it. In fact, in time, if Apples OS share increased, its hardware sales would be pulled up too. As long as they don't go back to the Centris. (cough Macbook)
C.
- New MacBook Pros (possibly including a 13" version)
- New MacBooks (sold at a sub-$1,000 price)
- new MacMini (also sold at an attractive price)
- A further price cut for the MacBook Air
I don't believe a tablet PC (MacFolio) will arrive before January 2009.I don't believe that SSDs are yet ready for prime time, but I certainly expect them to be added as cost options to most product lines.
I don't think that the MacBook Pros will come in at a price below existing models in case they are perceived to be inferior to the existing models.
i believe that what will most enable Apple to drive unit sales is by offering its new MacBook and MacMini at extremely attractive prices. in other words they will sacrifice margin to achieve volume. I don't think that either model will compromised in terms of spec.
I base these observations on only my own opinion not on any facts.
So what you are saying is..
"For all those millions of consumers out there, without the taste or decency to purchase proper Apple equipment. It should be their fate to endure the horrors of Windows. And Microsoft is entitled to their filthy tasteless cash. And we have a better MP3 player to boot!" We need them not!"
I counter with...
"Apple's hardware sales are solid, and its product range is profitable. That profit is not based on an OS X lock-in but is because its hardware is good enough to hold its own in the market. We all agree it would make no sense to go down-market with hardware.
But..
Restricting OS X to Apple-only hardware is now a bad thing. It is limiting Apple's growth as a software company. And it hands a de-facto victory to Microsoft."
At this precise moment in time, the dis-satisfaction with Microsoft amongst hardware vendors is at a peak. Apple could negotiate very favorable licensing terms because hardware manufacturers are simply desperate to give Microsoft a bloody nose.
A straight OS-X vs. Vista showdown would be much more interesting if Apple didn't have one hand tied behind its back.
There's only one reason to hold back and that is the cannibalization argument.
And I don't buy it. In fact, in time, if Apples OS share increased, its hardware sales would be pulled up too. As long as they don't go back to the Centris. (cough Macbook)
C.
I don't believe Apple is a software company. Instead, I believe they are fundamentally a hardware company that uses superior software to help differentiate their products.
Alright... anyone can make the above statement but here's why I think it to be true:
1) Apple has moved away from software in recent years. They virtually spun off Claris, killed AppleWorks, and never really promoted the Next software they obtained (WebObjects?).
2) Apple really doesn't make any Windows software despite the belief that they could easily do so. There are no Windows versions of Final Cut Pro, Aperature, etc. If they were fundamentally a software company, wouldn't they sell Windows software like almost every other software company? I don't include Safari or QuickTime because they are free.
3) The Windows software that they do make is generally all oriented toward only working with their hardware offerings. I'm speaking of iTunes here.
Could be wrong.
So what you are saying is..
"For all those millions of consumers out there, without the taste or decency to purchase proper Apple equipment. It should be their fate to endure the horrors of Windows. And Microsoft is entitled to their filthy tasteless cash. And we have a better MP3 player to boot!" We need them not!"
I counter with...
"Apple's hardware sales are solid, and its product range is profitable. That profit is not based on an OS X lock-in but is because its hardware is good enough to hold its own in the market. We all agree it would make no sense to go down-market with hardware.
But..
Restricting OS X to Apple-only hardware is now a bad thing. It is limiting Apple's growth as a software company. And it hands a de-facto victory to Microsoft."
......
C.
I don't believe Apple is a software company. Instead, I believe they are fundamentally a hardware company that uses superior software to help differentiate their products.
There's no doubt that Apple has a very extensive software team(s). Unlike other hardware companies like Dell, which don't really do any software R&D. After all Apple does not only make a very complex and advanced OS, they also make an array of consumer and pro apps. So to say that Apple is in every way a hardware company (with some nice software as a bonus) is a hyperbole. In practice Apple is by all means a software/hardware company which basically deliver a perfect marriage of the two as a single kick ass product.
But in the business context it looks a bit different. This is the interesting part. From a business standpoint Apple is a hardware company.
Let's just look at Final Cut Studio as an example. It's easy for me to talk about this because this is the business I am in. Now, Final Cut Studio is an incredibly powerful software package, at this point it's the industry standard for commercial video production, it no longer rivals Avid, it's passed it miles ago. In addition, some of the components of this suit where bought and re developed as apple apps. Like Color for example, this program went for somewhere near 10,000 bucks before apple bought it. Now it comes as part of a $1,200 package (along with all the other FCP apps).
Anyone would say that this is just way too cheap. How on earth is Apple making any money with this? Easy, it's on the hardware. Because after all, you need their $3500 workstation to run FCP.
Do you catch my drift?
Let's just look at Final Cut Studio as an example. It's easy for me to talk about this because this is the business I am in. Now, Final Cut Studio is an incredibly powerful software package, at this point it's the industry standard for commercial video production, it no longer rivals Avid, it's passed it miles ago. In addition, some of the components of this suit where bought and re developed as apple apps. Like Color for example, this program went for somewhere near 10,000 bucks before apple bought it. Now it comes as part of a $1,200 package (along with all the other FCP apps).
Anyone would say that this is just way too cheap. How on earth is Apple making any money with this? Easy, it's on the hardware. Because after all, you need their $3500 workstation to run FCP.
Do you catch my drift?
Your argument is better thought out than the others. But not correct. You can run Final Cut on an iMac. It will even run on a Mac Mini.
But as a pro, you'd know that if you want to run FCS, you really need a Mac Pro.
Even with OS licensing, Apple would still get the hardware sale. Some people buy MacPros to run Windows and Linux. There's no need to strong-arm its customers by locking them into its hardware.
And in the time it takes one professional to think about how many cores he needs, Best Buy have sold a hundred laptops and with each one send a chunk of cash to Redmond.
Again this boils down to cannibalization. "If Apple licensed OS X, hardware sales would migrate to better-value non-Apple hardware." or "The only reason people pay good money for that overpriced Apple hardware is to get their hands on OS X"
We know that isn't true. Apple sales *increased* when customers gained the option of running Windows.
C.
Your argument is better thought out than the others. But not correct. You can run Final Cut on an iMac. It will even run on a Mac Mini.
But as a pro, you'd know that if you want to run FCS, you really need a Mac Pro.
Even with OS licensing, Apple would still get the hardware sale. Some people buy MacPros to run Windows and Linux. There's no need to strong-arm its customers by locking them into its hardware.
And in the time it takes one professional to think about how many cores he needs, Best Buy have sold a hundred laptops and with each one send a chunk of cash to Redmond.
Again this boils down to cannibalization. "If Apple licensed OS X, hardware sales would migrate to better-value non-Apple hardware." or "The only reason people pay good money for that overpriced Apple hardware is to get their hands on OS X"
We know that isn't true. Apple sales *increased* when customers gained the option of running Windows.
C.
That still doesn't take into account the nightmare it would be to actually get OSX to run on all the 3rd party hardware out there. You said that the OS is already paid for, so why not just sell it off to other platforms as well. The truth is that it would cost a lot of money to make OSX universal. I'm no software engineer, but feel free to ask one, I'm sure he'll confirm, that it's not just a matter of adding in a few drivers and we're good to go. I honestly think that Apple would pour more money into r&d into OSX "universal" than it would make selling it. And at the end of the day, end up selling an inferior product, therefore damaging it's image as a sort of upper class/elite company.
You keep arguing that apple hardware is doing great. Well, you're right, so why not continue pushing those sales instead of trying to push other peoples hardware and possibly losing tons of money. So this is what apple will continue to do (imo), continue to sell more and more hardware, and continue to make more and more money by doing so.
You also have to keep in mind that Apple aren't out there to kill MS. They are out there to make money. So they really don't care if MS has a huge market share in operating systems, they don't care if all those poor saps have to settle for vista when they buy $600 best buy notebooks, as far as they are concerned they are making more and more money just by producing and selling their own hardware/software package.
That still doesn't take into account the nightmare it would be to actually get OSX to run on all the 3rd party hardware out there. You said that the OS is already paid for, so why not just sell it off to other platforms as well. The truth is that it would cost a lot of money to make OSX universal.
Apple would be crazy to launch OS X as a universal OS.
But there'd be nothing wrong with licensing EFI-equipped hardware which was essentially just an Apple reference design. It wouldn't cost Apple a penny. In fact a "Made for OS-X" sticker would also make money for Cupertino.
If you hadn't noticed, there's a ton of amateurs who already have OS X running on recent hardware.
One mistake that Microsoft made was greed. In order to accommodate the vast unwashed mess of all hardware vendors, Microsoft permitted unsigned drivers to pollute their OS.
The result was an unstable and sluggish OS because the driver for a Taiwanese sound board was incompatible with the Korean USB hub.
If Apple avoided this mistake, OS X on third party hardware would be dramatically more stable than Windows.
C.
32 GB iPod Touch - $499
iPhone 3G 16 GB - $399
13" Aluminum MB - $999
Not knowing what the hell apple is going to do next - priceless
Apple would be crazy to launch OS X as a universal OS.
But there'd be nothing wrong with licensing EFI-equipped hardware which was essentially just an Apple reference design. It wouldn't cost Apple a penny. In fact a "Made for OS-X" sticker would also make money for Cupertino.
If you hadn't noticed, there's a ton of amateurs who already have OS X running on recent hardware.
One mistake that Microsoft made was greed. In order to accommodate the vast unwashed mess of all hardware vendors, Microsoft permitted unsigned drivers to pollute their OS.
The result was an unstable and sluggish OS because the driver for a Taiwanese sound board was incompatible with the Korean USB hub.
If Apple avoided this mistake, OS X on third party hardware would be dramatically more stable than Windows.
C.
Ok. So if apple can't make more money in volume by making OSX available on anything, then why would they lisence only to Dell or HP in a limited fashion, if they can just do the same exact thing on their own, effectively cutting out the big ugly sore of a thumb middle man?
That still doesn't take into account the nightmare it would be to actually get OSX to run on all the 3rd party hardware out there.
If Apple only supported HP & Dell computers, they'd cover a huge percentage (more than 70%... I don't remember the figure). If they only supported a subset of those (say sub $1000 desktops) then they make things easier again.
there'd be nothing wrong with licensing EFI-equipped hardware which was essentially just an Apple reference design. It wouldn't cost Apple a penny. In fact a "Made for OS-X" sticker would also make money for Cupertino.
That is also true.
Not saying they should or shouldn't - there are arguments both ways, advantages and disadvantages to both.