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.
The pen was just my need. It's the easiest way to be able to draw a box, make notes in the box, draw an arrow to another box with other notes... move them around etc. It also works great if holding the tablet in one hand. But that's my personal need and that doesn't make it useful for others.
The reason I threw out an iPod Touch idea was that I can't see it surviving as is against a subsidised iPhone. A larger tablet though steps out of the iPod market into tablet PC territory, and it's a market that hasn't met much success. Apple's iPhone apps, app store, + iWork could make and own the market. The details of the tablet itself are less critical in the discussion of whether it fits Apple's mystery product comments.
ps.
I too think the mystery product is more likely to be elsewhere. The only real "transition" I can see is to all multi-touch on every screen they sell.
The pen was just my need. It's the easiest way to be able to draw a box, make notes in the box, draw an arrow to another box with other notes... move them around etc. It also works great if holding the tablet in one hand. But that's my personal need and that doesn't make it useful for others.
The reason I threw out an iPod Touch idea was that I can't see it surviving as is against a subsidised iPhone. A larger tablet though steps out of the iPod market into tablet PC territory, and it's a market that hasn't met much success. Apple's iPhone apps, app store, + iWork could make and own the market. The details of the tablet itself are less critical in the discussion of whether it fits Apple's mystery product comments.
ps.
I too think the mystery product is more likely to be elsewhere. The only real "transition" I can see is to all multi-touch on every screen they sell.
As a former Palm user and having an ipod touch, I've often longed for the old styus for jotting quick notes, pointing to a specific spot without accidently setting off another program or option I didn't want but got because of large fingers etc. Including typing on the key board. Notes and drawing in particular. But I get why they don't have it here.
I don't agree that the iphone kills the touch. Unless ATT gets better coverage where I live, I'll never sign up with them even though it would save me money on a combo package. ATT will not get 100% of the phone market and there will always be people who want an ipod for music first and don't care if its a phone. So the touch will live on.
I think MacMini will get an update with all Centrino 2 component. And possibly starting price at 499 USD.
Since Apple dont make much money from MacMini, wouldn't it be one factor that contribute to lower margin.
Or MacAir without an Optical drive. Making it Super Slim like thin Client.
i always think the concept of Air like Mac would be great use in Educational and other sectors where small devices are needed for simple task. Library Computers as example.
...Apple can't bundle their OS with Apple-certified third party hardware vendors because that's both illegal and nearly impossible, which is why desktop Linux distros haven't made any major headway...
Your clearly out of touch here, Dell and HP have been bundling Linux (RedHat, Ubuntu, and Suse) for awhile now. There's nothing illegal about it, and obviously not impossible. The reason Linux distros haven't made any headway is due to 1) lack of marketing, 2) lack of mainstream applications like Microsoft Office, and 3) Usability issues. Mac OS X solved all those issues while maintaining the strong and secure Linux underpingings making it ideal as competition to Microsoft. Why do you think Microsoft is going to run a huge advertising campaign against Apple? It's because Microsoft sees that Apple is beating them in everything they do, and if they don't act now, they'll be left as a company that makes Microsoft Office and Xboxes.
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?
Simple - it costs a lot of money to design and manufacture a desktop computer.
As far as drivers go, Microsoft doesn't make the drivers for other hardware vendors, so neither would Apple. If you read the documentation on your operating system, you'll see they say to contact your hardware manufacturer for compatible drivers. If you look at Dell's site you'll see they re-package all the drivers required for their systems. These drivers are based on reference drivers provided by the actual hardware vendors like Intel, Nvidia, ATI, etc... So hardware support is not an issue for Apple, if the hardware manufacturers' want their product to work with OS X, they'll provide the driver.
If they simple choose a low-end Dell/HP model that meets their specs, these costs are eliminated and increases their margins for operating system/branding licensing. Restricting the licensing deal to low-end desktops protect Apple's higher-end products. Someone who wants a cheap low-end desktop would have no interest in an iMac, so there is no cannibalization there. Yes this would mean the end of the Mac Mini, but that's a low profit center for Apple and doesn't affect their bottom line that much. The sheer volume of sales of such a low-end desktop would completely over-shadow those losses.
Cross-branded, cross-sales are the ultimate win as everyone benefits. That's why Apple has done deals with big names in the past like Nike, BMW, Best Buy and Circuit City. The value is in exposing your brand to the other brand's customers thus getting you more sales from consumers who wouldn't seek you out otherwise.
Simple - it costs a lot of money to design and manufacture a desktop computer.
Apple makes probably the highest margins on hardware than any other computer manufacturer. So obviously the high cost is still worth it. Remember that it's not always about volume, sometimes higher margins are a better strategy.
Quote:
As far as drivers go, Microsoft doesn't make the drivers for other hardware vendors, so neither would Apple. If you read the documentation on your operating system, you'll see they say to contact your hardware manufacturer for compatible drivers. If you look at Dell's site you'll see they re-package all the drivers required for their systems. These drivers are based on reference drivers provided by the actual hardware vendors like Intel, Nvidia, ATI, etc... So hardware support is not an issue for Apple, if the hardware manufacturers' want their product to work with OS X, they'll provide the driver.
It's more complicated than that, the drivers have to be recognized by the OS. It takes a lot more than just telling the OEMs to provide drivers.
Quote:
Cross-branded, cross-sales are the ultimate win as everyone benefits. That's why Apple has done deals with big names in the past like Nike, BMW, Best Buy and Circuit City. The value is in exposing your brand to the other brand's customers thus getting you more sales from consumers who wouldn't seek you out otherwise.
Nike, BMW, Best Buy and Circuit City are NOT direct competitors. (BB and CC being distributors actually).
I mean, it would kind of be like Jaguar going to Ford and saying, hey look, how about you produce cars under our brand name and design because it's just so much cheaper and easier if you do it since you are a much bigger company. That way we can make more by volume.
It just doesn't make sense now does it? Well, we all know what happened to Jaguar. They don't actually exist anymore, now Jaguar is just a division of Ford. And guess what? Most Jaguar enthusiast will agree that the new cars pale in comparison to what Jaguar used to offer. Now they are just fords with shiny jaguar logos.
It's a bit of a far fetched analogy, but you can see what I mean.
I don't buy the OS X licensing thing. They certainly aren't going to throw it wide open and license to everybody, and I don't think they will follow the model used back in the 90s either... I've read your arguments about why cannibalization wouldn't happen, but you're ignoring a very large number of people who will buy a lesser product to have $100 (or more). Many of that type of person want to run OS X but wince at the margin that Apple charges.
As for licensing to particular PC manufacturers... why? You'll note that Apple already out sources all of its production to other companies, but they get to completely control the design, earn all of the profits, and strengthen their brand all at the same time.
And finally, why would Apple be motivated to license OS X? To increase market share? Well their market share has been growing nicely for several years now, I don't see their burning need to drive it faster. SJ's comment about never seeing OS X hitting 50% or even 30% wasn't about how that can't its about how they don't see the need to. Low margin business doesn't make any money and delivers inferior product, so why go there?
Back to the original thread quesetion...
I rather like that MacBook/tablet picture link a few pages back, and the transition to the new Intel chipset does qualify as a major transition. It doesn't explain the "shut out" comment unless you fold in the whole SSD/TheCloud/etc. model on the theory that nobody else has the infrastructure currently to build that. I still think the CFO's quote implies something across the entire product line though. I don't think hard drives are going away yet, but perhaps built-in flash across the line is coming and leveraging Apple's position as a huge consumer of flash memory.
Apple makes probably the highest margins on hardware than any other computer manufacturer. So obviously the high cost is still worth it. Remember that it's not always about volume, sometimes higher margins are a better strategy.
Irrelevant.
The computer can be a commercial hit, or a commercial miss. It matters to the manufacturer, but either way, Microsoft makes money on that bundled copy of Vista. It's time to divert some of that cash away from Redmond.
Quote:
Originally Posted by paprochy
It's more complicated than that, the drivers have to be recognized by the OS. It takes a lot more than just telling the OEMs to provide drivers.
And so on. Modern PC hardware is the same as modern Mac hardware. Off-the-shelf parts already have OS X drivers, because Apple wrote them. If a bunch of amateurs can get OS X running on tablets and netbooks, do you really think it would be a problem for manufacturers with Apples active support?
Remember as a licensor Apple has the right to not hand out a sticker if it doesn't like the hardware.
And finally, why would Apple be motivated to license OS X? To increase market share? Well their market share has been growing nicely for several years now, I don't see their burning need to drive it faster. SJ's comment about never seeing OS X hitting 50% or even 30% wasn't about how that can't its about how they don't see the need to. Low margin business doesn't make any money and delivers inferior product, so why go there?
When Dell make a computer, the profit margin is indeed very low. Sometimes a few tens of dollars. Microsoft makes almost as much money from that computer as Dell.
That's why.
There's a giant underground pool of hardware that Apple will never ever want to build. And sticking into that pool is a big fat pipe sucking money up and into Microsoft. That pipe is called Vista OEM.
I happen to think that it's the perfect time for Apple to start drilling.
The computer can be a commercial hit, or a commercial miss. It matters to the manufacturer, but either way, Microsoft makes money on that bundled copy of Vista. It's time to divert some of that cash away from Redmond.
C.
Irrelevant? How can you say that? It's not irrelevant that Apple makes huge margins on their computer sales.
What is irrelevant is that Redmond is making money selling Vista. Like I said in a previous post, Apple really could care less how much money MS make, they only care how much Apple makes.
It's not a direct competition to see who can "win", it's about making money. And as for as I can see, Apple's business is growing, and MS is slowly sliding into oblivion. So why you think Apple should do exactly what MS has been doing is beyond me.
Irrelevant? How can you say that? It's not irrelevant that Apple makes huge margins on their computer sales.
What is irrelevant is that Redmond is making money selling Vista. Like I said in a previous post, Apple really could care less how much money MS make, they only care how much Apple makes.
It's not a direct competition to see who can "win", it's about making money. And as for as I can see, Apple's business is growing, and MS is slowly sliding into oblivion. So why you think Apple should do exactly what MS has been doing is beyond me.
If you are Apple ($146.39B)
It's better to go after Microsoft ($243.69B)
than go after Dell. ($47.92B)
Software is a bigger business than hardware. And I happen to believe that Apple are better at software development than Microsoft.
what are those numbers? assets? That doesn't take into account growth and other factors.
Microsoft is a sinking ship, and there's no reason to model your business strategies on theirs.
And like I said before, it's not about going after anybody. If I found a way to make money by entering a market in a different way than a big huge competitor does, then I would stick with that instead of going head on with the other guy just so I can put him out of business (if I can even succeed in doing that). To be honest, I don't think Apple really wants to be the biggest guy in town. History tells us that bigger isn't always better. Not every business is a McDonalds one. Large volume and huge market share make work for hamburgers, but I don't know if it's the same for computers.
Your clearly out of touch here, Dell and HP have been bundling Linux (RedHat, Ubuntu, and Suse) for awhile now. There's nothing illegal about it, and obviously not impossible. The reason Linux distros haven't made any headway is due to 1) lack of marketing, 2) lack of mainstream applications like Microsoft Office, and 3) Usability issues. Mac OS X solved all those issues while maintaining the strong and secure Linux underpingings making it ideal as competition to Microsoft. Why do you think Microsoft is going to run a huge advertising campaign against Apple? It's because Microsoft sees that Apple is beating them in everything they do, and if they don't act now, they'll be left as a company that makes Microsoft Office and Xboxes.
I'm not out of touch, I know Dell and HP have offered LInux as an alternative on some of their computers. That's why I said Linux hasn't made "major headway" instead of "no headway."
However, go to either Dell or HP's websites and try to configure any of their consumer laptops or desktops with Linux. You can't; I just tried.
What does it say on each of their sites everywhere? "Dell/HP recommend Windows Vista Home Premium" Oh yeah, they certainly do. They are dependent on Microsoft just like the vast majority of cell phone makers are dependent on cellular service providers. Neither Dell or HP can really sell their hardware outside of Microsoft thanks to these third party hardware vendors signing exclusive anti-competitive, anti-consumer OEM licensing deals with Microsoft. That's the real reason Linux has made no serious inroads into the Microsoft monopoly and Carniphage, that's why Apple has no interest in licensing its OS to third parties.
Apple has a symbiotic relationship with the open source community. Mac OS X is the biggest and most popular Unix distribution in the world and often leverages work already done by the open source community to better its offerings without having to spend time and money on R&D. Apple doesn't need to sell its OS to the PC bargain bin when nearly free Linux distros can do the job much better. That puts pressure on Microsoft from two sides: Apple on the profitable high-end and consumer markets, Linux on the low end, leaving Microsoft with its stagnating base of beige-box Windows PCs.
Software is a bigger business than hardware. And I happen to believe that Apple are better at software development than Microsoft.
C.
Or Apple could go after markets they can grow and dominate as opposed to low margin, saturated markets.
Lemme see...go into the commodity OS market where some competitors GIVE their product away (Ubuntu, Sun, etc) or go into the smartphone market and rake in huge margins.
Gee. I think I'd rather keep my competitive advantage to myself and not let Dell, Sony, Acer, HP, Toshiba, etc capture any of my very valuable share of the high end PC market where healthy margins actually exist...
I Neither Dell or HP can really sell their hardware outside of Microsoft thanks to these third party hardware vendors signing exclusive anti-competitive, anti-consumer OEM licensing deals with Microsoft.
Argument 1) "Cannibalization"
Apple hardware is so bad that no one would buy it if they could get OS X on a Dell.
Argument 2) "Taste"
Apple has simply no interest in growth if it means selling to working-class people.
Apple hardware is so bad that no one would buy it if they could get OS X on a Dell.
Argument 2) "Taste"
Apple has simply no interest in growth if it means selling to working-class people.
Argument 3) "Anti-Competetive"
Microsoft don't play fair! Waaaaaah!
Carniphage, please stop putting words in my mouth and trying to tell me what I think.
HP and Dell don't hold the power, Microsoft does. That's why neither can sell their PCs on their own and why free Linux licenses are unable to compete with the much more expensive Windows licenses. Do you not understand that? It's a monopoly, not a free market.
two models - all alu, new cpus, discrete graphics card, ....
$1099, $1299
2. price drop in MBA
3. touch screen on all the iPods except iPod shuffle
4. Merger of macbook and macbook pro
no new products ....
and one more thing
sep is just a month away!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Quote:
Originally Posted by astrosmash
It's a MacTablet, obviously. A merging of a full Mac and the iPhone in terms of functionality and UI.
It's the last remaining "poorly defined" market to be conquered before Steve-o retires.
I've been saying for years that eventually they are going to oust the notebook line into convertible versions of the same product. That way you get two products for your money, but also if all you want is a notebook it's there and if you never want to use a tablet you don't have to. The technology is at the point to where these things can be just as thin and light as a regular notebook. MacBook Air as proven that. I think we'll see convertible tablets. I dont see the MacBook leaving and the phone taking over. It's way to small to anything on.
Carniphage, please stop putting words in my mouth and trying to tell me what I think.
HP and Dell don't hold the power, Microsoft does. That's why neither can sell their PCs on their own and why free Linux licenses are unable to compete with the much more expensive Windows licenses. Do you not understand that? It's a monopoly, not a free market.
If the going gets tough... do we hide in a corner under a blankee?
Linux has had little impact because "no one wants Linux TM".
People *do* want OS X.
HP cannot sell a PC without Windows because no one would buy a PC with no OS. That would be crazy. If only there were an ALTERNATIVE TO WINDOWS, the monopoly could be dismantled.
Comments
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.
The pen was just my need. It's the easiest way to be able to draw a box, make notes in the box, draw an arrow to another box with other notes... move them around etc. It also works great if holding the tablet in one hand. But that's my personal need and that doesn't make it useful for others.
The reason I threw out an iPod Touch idea was that I can't see it surviving as is against a subsidised iPhone. A larger tablet though steps out of the iPod market into tablet PC territory, and it's a market that hasn't met much success. Apple's iPhone apps, app store, + iWork could make and own the market. The details of the tablet itself are less critical in the discussion of whether it fits Apple's mystery product comments.
ps.
I too think the mystery product is more likely to be elsewhere. The only real "transition" I can see is to all multi-touch on every screen they sell.
The pen was just my need. It's the easiest way to be able to draw a box, make notes in the box, draw an arrow to another box with other notes... move them around etc. It also works great if holding the tablet in one hand. But that's my personal need and that doesn't make it useful for others.
The reason I threw out an iPod Touch idea was that I can't see it surviving as is against a subsidised iPhone. A larger tablet though steps out of the iPod market into tablet PC territory, and it's a market that hasn't met much success. Apple's iPhone apps, app store, + iWork could make and own the market. The details of the tablet itself are less critical in the discussion of whether it fits Apple's mystery product comments.
ps.
I too think the mystery product is more likely to be elsewhere. The only real "transition" I can see is to all multi-touch on every screen they sell.
As a former Palm user and having an ipod touch, I've often longed for the old styus for jotting quick notes, pointing to a specific spot without accidently setting off another program or option I didn't want but got because of large fingers etc. Including typing on the key board. Notes and drawing in particular. But I get why they don't have it here.
I don't agree that the iphone kills the touch. Unless ATT gets better coverage where I live, I'll never sign up with them even though it would save me money on a combo package. ATT will not get 100% of the phone market and there will always be people who want an ipod for music first and don't care if its a phone. So the touch will live on.
Since Apple dont make much money from MacMini, wouldn't it be one factor that contribute to lower margin.
Or MacAir without an Optical drive. Making it Super Slim like thin Client.
i always think the concept of Air like Mac would be great use in Educational and other sectors where small devices are needed for simple task. Library Computers as example.
...Apple can't bundle their OS with Apple-certified third party hardware vendors because that's both illegal and nearly impossible, which is why desktop Linux distros haven't made any major headway...
Your clearly out of touch here, Dell and HP have been bundling Linux (RedHat, Ubuntu, and Suse) for awhile now. There's nothing illegal about it, and obviously not impossible. The reason Linux distros haven't made any headway is due to 1) lack of marketing, 2) lack of mainstream applications like Microsoft Office, and 3) Usability issues. Mac OS X solved all those issues while maintaining the strong and secure Linux underpingings making it ideal as competition to Microsoft. Why do you think Microsoft is going to run a huge advertising campaign against Apple? It's because Microsoft sees that Apple is beating them in everything they do, and if they don't act now, they'll be left as a company that makes Microsoft Office and Xboxes.
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?
Simple - it costs a lot of money to design and manufacture a desktop computer.
As far as drivers go, Microsoft doesn't make the drivers for other hardware vendors, so neither would Apple. If you read the documentation on your operating system, you'll see they say to contact your hardware manufacturer for compatible drivers. If you look at Dell's site you'll see they re-package all the drivers required for their systems. These drivers are based on reference drivers provided by the actual hardware vendors like Intel, Nvidia, ATI, etc... So hardware support is not an issue for Apple, if the hardware manufacturers' want their product to work with OS X, they'll provide the driver.
If they simple choose a low-end Dell/HP model that meets their specs, these costs are eliminated and increases their margins for operating system/branding licensing. Restricting the licensing deal to low-end desktops protect Apple's higher-end products. Someone who wants a cheap low-end desktop would have no interest in an iMac, so there is no cannibalization there. Yes this would mean the end of the Mac Mini, but that's a low profit center for Apple and doesn't affect their bottom line that much. The sheer volume of sales of such a low-end desktop would completely over-shadow those losses.
Cross-branded, cross-sales are the ultimate win as everyone benefits. That's why Apple has done deals with big names in the past like Nike, BMW, Best Buy and Circuit City. The value is in exposing your brand to the other brand's customers thus getting you more sales from consumers who wouldn't seek you out otherwise.
Simple - it costs a lot of money to design and manufacture a desktop computer.
Apple makes probably the highest margins on hardware than any other computer manufacturer. So obviously the high cost is still worth it. Remember that it's not always about volume, sometimes higher margins are a better strategy.
As far as drivers go, Microsoft doesn't make the drivers for other hardware vendors, so neither would Apple. If you read the documentation on your operating system, you'll see they say to contact your hardware manufacturer for compatible drivers. If you look at Dell's site you'll see they re-package all the drivers required for their systems. These drivers are based on reference drivers provided by the actual hardware vendors like Intel, Nvidia, ATI, etc... So hardware support is not an issue for Apple, if the hardware manufacturers' want their product to work with OS X, they'll provide the driver.
It's more complicated than that, the drivers have to be recognized by the OS. It takes a lot more than just telling the OEMs to provide drivers.
Cross-branded, cross-sales are the ultimate win as everyone benefits. That's why Apple has done deals with big names in the past like Nike, BMW, Best Buy and Circuit City. The value is in exposing your brand to the other brand's customers thus getting you more sales from consumers who wouldn't seek you out otherwise.
Nike, BMW, Best Buy and Circuit City are NOT direct competitors. (BB and CC being distributors actually).
I mean, it would kind of be like Jaguar going to Ford and saying, hey look, how about you produce cars under our brand name and design because it's just so much cheaper and easier if you do it since you are a much bigger company. That way we can make more by volume.
It just doesn't make sense now does it? Well, we all know what happened to Jaguar. They don't actually exist anymore, now Jaguar is just a division of Ford. And guess what? Most Jaguar enthusiast will agree that the new cars pale in comparison to what Jaguar used to offer. Now they are just fords with shiny jaguar logos.
It's a bit of a far fetched analogy, but you can see what I mean.
As for licensing to particular PC manufacturers... why? You'll note that Apple already out sources all of its production to other companies, but they get to completely control the design, earn all of the profits, and strengthen their brand all at the same time.
And finally, why would Apple be motivated to license OS X? To increase market share? Well their market share has been growing nicely for several years now, I don't see their burning need to drive it faster. SJ's comment about never seeing OS X hitting 50% or even 30% wasn't about how that can't its about how they don't see the need to. Low margin business doesn't make any money and delivers inferior product, so why go there?
Back to the original thread quesetion...
I rather like that MacBook/tablet picture link a few pages back, and the transition to the new Intel chipset does qualify as a major transition. It doesn't explain the "shut out" comment unless you fold in the whole SSD/TheCloud/etc. model on the theory that nobody else has the infrastructure currently to build that. I still think the CFO's quote implies something across the entire product line though. I don't think hard drives are going away yet, but perhaps built-in flash across the line is coming and leveraging Apple's position as a huge consumer of flash memory.
Apple makes probably the highest margins on hardware than any other computer manufacturer. So obviously the high cost is still worth it. Remember that it's not always about volume, sometimes higher margins are a better strategy.
Irrelevant.
The computer can be a commercial hit, or a commercial miss. It matters to the manufacturer, but either way, Microsoft makes money on that bundled copy of Vista. It's time to divert some of that cash away from Redmond.
It's more complicated than that, the drivers have to be recognized by the OS. It takes a lot more than just telling the OEMs to provide drivers.
It's not complicated at all.
Look at this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qZ7mDwMyTLk
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EF45r...eature=related
And so on. Modern PC hardware is the same as modern Mac hardware. Off-the-shelf parts already have OS X drivers, because Apple wrote them. If a bunch of amateurs can get OS X running on tablets and netbooks, do you really think it would be a problem for manufacturers with Apples active support?
Remember as a licensor Apple has the right to not hand out a sticker if it doesn't like the hardware.
THERE IS NO HARDWARE SUPPORT PROBLEM.
C.
And finally, why would Apple be motivated to license OS X? To increase market share? Well their market share has been growing nicely for several years now, I don't see their burning need to drive it faster. SJ's comment about never seeing OS X hitting 50% or even 30% wasn't about how that can't its about how they don't see the need to. Low margin business doesn't make any money and delivers inferior product, so why go there?
http://marketshare.hitslink.com/report.aspx?qprid=8
Windows is still at 90%.
When Dell make a computer, the profit margin is indeed very low. Sometimes a few tens of dollars. Microsoft makes almost as much money from that computer as Dell.
That's why.
There's a giant underground pool of hardware that Apple will never ever want to build. And sticking into that pool is a big fat pipe sucking money up and into Microsoft. That pipe is called Vista OEM.
I happen to think that it's the perfect time for Apple to start drilling.
C.
Irrelevant.
The computer can be a commercial hit, or a commercial miss. It matters to the manufacturer, but either way, Microsoft makes money on that bundled copy of Vista. It's time to divert some of that cash away from Redmond.
C.
Irrelevant? How can you say that? It's not irrelevant that Apple makes huge margins on their computer sales.
What is irrelevant is that Redmond is making money selling Vista. Like I said in a previous post, Apple really could care less how much money MS make, they only care how much Apple makes.
It's not a direct competition to see who can "win", it's about making money. And as for as I can see, Apple's business is growing, and MS is slowly sliding into oblivion. So why you think Apple should do exactly what MS has been doing is beyond me.
Irrelevant? How can you say that? It's not irrelevant that Apple makes huge margins on their computer sales.
What is irrelevant is that Redmond is making money selling Vista. Like I said in a previous post, Apple really could care less how much money MS make, they only care how much Apple makes.
It's not a direct competition to see who can "win", it's about making money. And as for as I can see, Apple's business is growing, and MS is slowly sliding into oblivion. So why you think Apple should do exactly what MS has been doing is beyond me.
If you are Apple ($146.39B)
It's better to go after Microsoft ($243.69B)
than go after Dell. ($47.92B)
Software is a bigger business than hardware. And I happen to believe that Apple are better at software development than Microsoft.
C.
Microsoft is a sinking ship, and there's no reason to model your business strategies on theirs.
And like I said before, it's not about going after anybody. If I found a way to make money by entering a market in a different way than a big huge competitor does, then I would stick with that instead of going head on with the other guy just so I can put him out of business (if I can even succeed in doing that). To be honest, I don't think Apple really wants to be the biggest guy in town. History tells us that bigger isn't always better. Not every business is a McDonalds one. Large volume and huge market share make work for hamburgers, but I don't know if it's the same for computers.
Your clearly out of touch here, Dell and HP have been bundling Linux (RedHat, Ubuntu, and Suse) for awhile now. There's nothing illegal about it, and obviously not impossible. The reason Linux distros haven't made any headway is due to 1) lack of marketing, 2) lack of mainstream applications like Microsoft Office, and 3) Usability issues. Mac OS X solved all those issues while maintaining the strong and secure Linux underpingings making it ideal as competition to Microsoft. Why do you think Microsoft is going to run a huge advertising campaign against Apple? It's because Microsoft sees that Apple is beating them in everything they do, and if they don't act now, they'll be left as a company that makes Microsoft Office and Xboxes.
I'm not out of touch, I know Dell and HP have offered LInux as an alternative on some of their computers. That's why I said Linux hasn't made "major headway" instead of "no headway."
However, go to either Dell or HP's websites and try to configure any of their consumer laptops or desktops with Linux. You can't; I just tried.
What does it say on each of their sites everywhere? "Dell/HP recommend Windows Vista Home Premium" Oh yeah, they certainly do. They are dependent on Microsoft just like the vast majority of cell phone makers are dependent on cellular service providers. Neither Dell or HP can really sell their hardware outside of Microsoft thanks to these third party hardware vendors signing exclusive anti-competitive, anti-consumer OEM licensing deals with Microsoft. That's the real reason Linux has made no serious inroads into the Microsoft monopoly and Carniphage, that's why Apple has no interest in licensing its OS to third parties.
Apple has a symbiotic relationship with the open source community. Mac OS X is the biggest and most popular Unix distribution in the world and often leverages work already done by the open source community to better its offerings without having to spend time and money on R&D. Apple doesn't need to sell its OS to the PC bargain bin when nearly free Linux distros can do the job much better. That puts pressure on Microsoft from two sides: Apple on the profitable high-end and consumer markets, Linux on the low end, leaving Microsoft with its stagnating base of beige-box Windows PCs.
Microsoft is a sinking ship,
Vista has Microsoft lying in the gutter, bleeding.
Now is the perfect moment to kick them where it hurts. In their precious OS market share.
C.
If you are Apple ($146.39B)
It's better to go after Microsoft ($243.69B)
than go after Dell. ($47.92B)
Software is a bigger business than hardware. And I happen to believe that Apple are better at software development than Microsoft.
C.
Or Apple could go after markets they can grow and dominate as opposed to low margin, saturated markets.
Lemme see...go into the commodity OS market where some competitors GIVE their product away (Ubuntu, Sun, etc) or go into the smartphone market and rake in huge margins.
Gee. I think I'd rather keep my competitive advantage to myself and not let Dell, Sony, Acer, HP, Toshiba, etc capture any of my very valuable share of the high end PC market where healthy margins actually exist...
Vista has Microsoft lying in the gutter, bleeding.
Now is the perfect moment to kick them where it hurts. In their precious OS market share.
C.
Apple's objective it to make awesome products and great margins. Not fight some war with Microsoft over territory it doesn't even want to win.
I Neither Dell or HP can really sell their hardware outside of Microsoft thanks to these third party hardware vendors signing exclusive anti-competitive, anti-consumer OEM licensing deals with Microsoft.
Argument 1) "Cannibalization"
Apple hardware is so bad that no one would buy it if they could get OS X on a Dell.
Argument 2) "Taste"
Apple has simply no interest in growth if it means selling to working-class people.
Argument 3) "Anti-Competetive"
Microsoft don't play fair! Waaaaaah!
C.
Argument 1) "Cannibalization"
Apple hardware is so bad that no one would buy it if they could get OS X on a Dell.
Argument 2) "Taste"
Apple has simply no interest in growth if it means selling to working-class people.
Argument 3) "Anti-Competetive"
Microsoft don't play fair! Waaaaaah!
Carniphage, please stop putting words in my mouth and trying to tell me what I think.
HP and Dell don't hold the power, Microsoft does. That's why neither can sell their PCs on their own and why free Linux licenses are unable to compete with the much more expensive Windows licenses. Do you not understand that? It's a monopoly, not a free market.
Best to worst case scanerio
-----------------------------------------
1. merger of macbooks
two models - all alu, new cpus, discrete graphics card, ....
$1099, $1299
2. price drop in MBA
3. touch screen on all the iPods except iPod shuffle
4. Merger of macbook and macbook pro
no new products ....
and one more thing
sep is just a month away!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
It's a MacTablet, obviously. A merging of a full Mac and the iPhone in terms of functionality and UI.
It's the last remaining "poorly defined" market to be conquered before Steve-o retires.
I've been saying for years that eventually they are going to oust the notebook line into convertible versions of the same product. That way you get two products for your money, but also if all you want is a notebook it's there and if you never want to use a tablet you don't have to. The technology is at the point to where these things can be just as thin and light as a regular notebook. MacBook Air as proven that. I think we'll see convertible tablets. I dont see the MacBook leaving and the phone taking over. It's way to small to anything on.
Carniphage, please stop putting words in my mouth and trying to tell me what I think.
HP and Dell don't hold the power, Microsoft does. That's why neither can sell their PCs on their own and why free Linux licenses are unable to compete with the much more expensive Windows licenses. Do you not understand that? It's a monopoly, not a free market.
If the going gets tough... do we hide in a corner under a blankee?
Linux has had little impact because "no one wants Linux TM".
People *do* want OS X.
HP cannot sell a PC without Windows because no one would buy a PC with no OS. That would be crazy. If only there were an ALTERNATIVE TO WINDOWS, the monopoly could be dismantled.
C.
Let's flash back to 2005
http://www.tuaw.com/2005/06/16/dell-would-sell-os-x/
And CK is wrong about the drivers.