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.
Hardly anyone even knows what Linux is and similarly, what Mac OS X is. Licensing the Apple OS won't magically untie Windows from PCs. So, it'd be similar to adding yet another Linux distro to the list of optional operating systems that aren't advertised or even available when configuring a Dell or HP online.
Carniphage, I think you commented on my statement which I then further expanded on. So, here's the rest of my argument that you might have missed:
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.
Carniphage sounds like he is less interested in apple succeeding and more interested in microsoft being destroyed.
That's just not the way business works. Capitalism isn't about putting everyone else out of business, it's about making your business successful.
Not at all.
There is a huge fat revenue stream out there. It is created because every computer sold, is bundled with an OS. Microsoft has *all* of that revenue to themselves because no one is offering any competition.
The best part of capitalism is competition. Because excellence is encouraged.
Apple has a more-excellent OS. To not sell it is a lost opportunity.
Not only does Apple lose out on all that revenue. But I honestly believe that the world is a worse place for Microsoft dominance.
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.[/U][/B][/I]
You don't put pressure on Microsoft by rolling over and playing dead.
Apple is not competing with Microsoft, because Apple is not selling an OS. It only sells computers.
Microsoft maintains a staggering 90% OS share by not selling any computers at all. Instead it out-earns Apple with an almost invisible OEM tax on every computer sold. This tax is paid so that hardware vendors are allowed to ship Vista; A truly terrible product.
So long as Apple refuses to licence OS X, it relegates the worlds best computer operating system to a minor role.
C.
PS. I quite like Microsoft when they make good stuff. The 360 is a pretty good product!
The Surface Computer could be mounted in the wall, or be under a transparent sheet that could be cleaned or replaced. The virtue of it is that diners could order large-size items just by tapping on pictures of them--there'd be no need for a waiter to get involved.
Let's get real here -- Microsoft's Surface announcements were nothing but a weak attempt to grab media attention away from the iPhone. For most applications conventional touch-screen technology is completely adequate, including restaurants, kiosks, museums, etc. The idea that Surface will generate $10 billion in business is ludicrous.
You don't put pressure on Microsoft by rolling over and playing dead.
How is Apple rolling over and playing dead by licensing out its OS to a dead market? Apple is a business, and a smart one. What do businesses want? To be successful and MAKE MONEY!!! There's no MONEY to be made in a DYING MARKET.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Carniphage
Apple is not competing with Microsoft, because Apple is not selling an OS. It only sells computers.
Microsoft maintains a staggering 90% OS share by not selling any computers at all. Instead it out-earns Apple with an almost invisible OEM tax on every computer sold. This tax is paid so that hardware vendors are allowed to ship Vista; A truly terrible product.
You did not just say Microsoft and Apple are not competing with each other, did you?
While Microsoft's OEM tax is hidden in the cost of third party hardware, that hidden price becomes more and more visible as the price of the PC it's being bundled with is. Swap out that Windows license out with Linux, which can be offered virtually free, and you get an even less expensive computer. Apple WILL NOT give away their OS for free. There's no money in giving it away. But Linux can, thanks to its funding by the open source community and...one of its biggest and most powerful supporters...APPLE!!!!
Quote:
Originally Posted by Carniphage
So long as Apple refuses to licence OS X, it relegates the worlds best computer operating system to a minor role.
That's pretty inaccurate. While they can't hope to make a dent in Microsoft's 97% global market share of Windows PCs, Apple's computers are already dominant in the media creation field, doing well in higher education (and increasingly, K-12), science and medical fields, and they have a good 10-20% of the consumer market. But of course, you must know that OS X is not only sold with every new Mac, it's the operating system the....iPhone uses! The iPhone has already displaced all but RIM's established BlackBerry in the smart phone market and it's hardly been out a year. Not only that, the slow-growth juggernaut that is the AppleTV also runs...Mac OS X!!
There is a huge fat revenue stream out there. It is created because every computer sold, is bundled with an OS. Microsoft has *all* of that revenue to themselves because no one is offering any competition.
The best part of capitalism is competition. Because excellence is encouraged.
Apple has a more-excellent OS. To not sell it is a lost opportunity.
Not only does Apple lose out on all that revenue. But I honestly believe that the world is a worse place for Microsoft dominance.
C.
I think your argument is based on the assumption that Apple is going to expand the overall market share of OS X by selling it independent of their computers. I disagree and I think history supports that conclusion.
Back in the 90s, Apple did just that and they were going up against a total abomination called Windows 95 (you think Vista is bad, well ...). It turned out that they didn't expand Mac OS market share at all but instead only shrunk their computer business. It almost ruined the company.
Next example: OS/2 was far superior to Windows 95 but IBM (a huge company with unlimited resources) couldn't get any traction and abandoned the effort.
Next example: NeXT's OpenStep was far superior to anything Microsoft had in operating systems. It went nowhere.
Next example: BeOS.
Today's world: Linux is essentially free and it's barely made any inroad at all beyond the server segment (where it's strong but heavily supported by IT departments).
So, it begs the question... what evidence exists that OS X has a profitable future apart from Apple computers? Anyone who wants OS X is free to go to their nearest Apple store, Best Buy, MicroCenter, etc. and buy an Apple computer (not to mention Apple's website). In fact, there are far more option available to most people to buy an Apple computer as opposed to a Dell computer.
Hardly anyone even knows what Linux is and similarly, what Mac OS X is. Licensing the Apple OS won't magically untie Windows from PCs. So, it'd be similar to adding yet another Linux distro to the list of optional operating systems that aren't advertised or even available when configuring a Dell or HP online.
Carniphage, I think you commented on my statement which I then further expanded on. So, here's the rest of my argument that you might have missed:
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.
Mmm, Dell already sells PCs with Ubuntu pre-installed.
And they cost more than the same and better-spec'd Windows model equivalents. But what Dell does offer, is that the laptop/desktop will work OOB with Ubuntu, as also provides support.
Yet, Dell is a bigger player than say, System76, and still doesn't sell that many Linux PCs...Linux is OK on the desktop, but you'd still have to fairly tech-savy, and willing to deal with vendor issues or devices simply not working, because companies don't work with the open-source community. I don't see most Mac or Windows users being tech-savy or willing to deal devices not working OOB.
Simply put, Linux isn't a competitor to Microsoft or Apple in the desktop arena ATM - it's good, but not something that can just be tossed on a machine, and everything get picked up.
And Apple already tried selling the Mac OS to clone makers. It went nowhere, and ended up huring Apple in the short term, as the clone makers were more aggressive on the pricing, and hurting Apple's bottomline. I still remember UMAX and Motorola selling better spec'd machines than Apple, for less ATM.
I think your argument is based on the assumption that Apple is going to expand the overall market share of OS X by selling it independent of their computers. I disagree and I think history supports that conclusion.
Back in the 90s, Apple did just that and they were going up against a total abomination called Windows 95 (you think Vista is bad, well ...). It turned out that they didn't expand Mac OS market share at all but instead only shrunk their computer business. It almost ruined the company.
This is Argument 1: Cannibalization
If Apple's business is hardware. As it was in the 90s - It is really really important that the hardware be commercially competetive. But back then it was not.
In the 90s, the *only* reason to buy a Mac - was Mac OS.
Which was why it was profoundly dumb to licence the OS to clone makers. They were selling Mac clones which were CHEAPER AND FASTER than Apple's own product. Cannibalization was inevitable.
But that was then and this is now. Has anyone noticed that Apple's hardware stopped sucking a while back?
Once the suckage stops, licensing is a win win!
C.
Footnotes....
Macintosh OS from the 90s never did go up against Windows, Apple OS ran on PowerPC hardware, while Windows 95 ran on Intel. They were never in the ring together.
You forgot to mention that Microsoft created OS/2. And after the trial run, went on to create OS/3 which became Windows NT.
You forgot to mention that NEXTSTEP's failure might have been because it was TIED TO OVERPRICED HARDWARE for most of its existence. Remember the Magnesium Cube? The hardware requirements of NextStep meant that it did not compete with Windows until it was much too late. Fortunately NextStep was salvaged.
It will be Apple-branded interactive adult entertainment using multi-touch technology. The possibilities are endless. And the new adult films with this technology will be available same-day.
Why play Super Monkey Ball when you can fondle Jenna Jameson's breasts in real time while waiting at the bus stop?
I can just see the tagline to the ads now... "When I think about you, iTouch myself."
So, it begs the question... what evidence exists that OS X has a profitable future apart from Apple computers? Anyone who wants OS X is free to go to their nearest Apple store, Best Buy, MicroCenter, etc. and buy an Apple computer (not to mention Apple's website). In fact, there are far more option available to most people to buy an Apple computer as opposed to a Dell computer.
That's a good question!
The answer is this. Apple only makes a handful of computer lines.
A pro workstation, an all-in-one, a microbox and a couple of laptops.
There are products that people want to buy which Apple will not make for them
Some people want netbooks,
Some people want cheap headless boxes with upgradable hardware.
Some idiots even want tablets.
Apple does not make those products. Apple loses the sale - and Microsoft get the cash and retains the market share.
Leopard OEM would turn that loss into $80 pure profit. Add in iLife and iWork bundle and its closer to $200. That's the same profit as Mac Mini, or a laptop hardware sale.
I'm all for lower priced, high volume sales, but few can argue Apple's niche is really the high ground. My hope: an all-new 27" (or 24") Quad-Core iMac with Blu-Ray! No doubt, Apple would sell a ton of those!
If Apple's business is hardware. As it was in the 90s - It is really really important that the hardware be commercially competetive. But back then it was not.
In the 90s, the *only* reason to buy a Mac - was Mac OS.
Which was why it was profoundly dumb to licence the OS to clone makers. They were selling Mac clones which were CHEAPER AND FASTER than Apple's own product. Cannibalization was inevitable.
But that was then and this is now. Has anyone noticed that Apple's hardware stopped sucking a while back?
Once the suckage stops, licensing is a win win!
C.
At this point your arguments just seem absurd. I mean, really, you are saying that this is the best time to focus on selling software because the hardware is so great? What the...
I mean basically you are saying that it's ok for apple to license osx to other vendors cause their own hardware is really great and competitive, and therefore will win out against the 3rd party vendors. So what's the point of licensing osx to them in the first place?
I mean it's gotta be one or the other. Either you sell computers (or other devices, say, blackberry or playstation) with your own OS as a complete package or you make just the OS and license it to everyone else. You can't compete with yourself. It may seem like covering yourself on all fronts, but it's just shooting yourself in the foot.
I am not going to return to all of the other arguments for now. But I will touch on cannibalization. The truth is, that it would happen. The 3rd parties would of course offer computers that are slightly cheaper, and are slightly better spec'd out. In reality these will be lower quality products (as where the clones in the 90s) at the cost of lower price and higher specs. At first people would buy into it, screwing up apples hardware sales, and eventually re creating what happened 13 years ago.
The more I argue with you, the more I realize how unlikely what you are saying is.
Another reason FOR OSX on other hardware - my old company was not allowed to consider OSX because they didn't have multiple options for buying their hardware.
And a big reason against it - Apple has the flexibility to evolve the hardware and software together as well as make leaps. Whereas Microsoft can ask hardware makers to take a risk, they may or may not do so, and are unlikely to do it with their whole hardware range.
To bring it back to the mystery new product and (or is it or?) product transition - Apple structure makes putting a touch screen in its iMacs/Laptops/Displays a risk it could get behind. Or owning the OS and hardware means it can redefine tablet computer hardware and OS, rather than treat the OS and the way it's accessed as independent problems.
(I'm not saying a separate OS and hardware company can't do it - just that there is an advantage in having them in one company)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Carniphage
Not at all.
The best part of capitalism is competition. Because excellence is encouraged.
I've often wished for OSX on other hardware, mainly because I'm a real believer in competition. If a single company gets too much power then the advantages to competition are lost. I'd also like to see iTunes buying from other music stores, or my Nokia phone synchronising playlists with iTunes etc.
As a general rule, you either need a single company with serving people as their main goal, or many companies with making money as their goal... but a single company (or even 2 or 3 companies) with making money as the goal is bad news requiring government involvement and messy goals.
I wouldn't be surprised if the transition is iMac-related.
What if Apple were to standardize on an LED-backlit 22" 24-bit panel
and quad-core CPU? Using these components would reduce Apple's
margins, and leap ahead of All-In-One competitors.
true, it is possible ... but why overhaul iMac while all the statistics points out Laptops are outselling desktops?
to goto QuadCore, iMac requires significant design (motherboard and casing) which not gonna happen (when intel is closing the performance gap between laptop and desktop CPUs as day passes by)
1) Like the Ipod apple would not be first to offer such a device but hopefully Apple will improve on it by offering a superior product in style and performance. The Kindle is nice but it definitely has room for improvement in both looks an usability. I would love to see how Apple would improve on such a device.
2) If I remember correctly Steve Jobs already criticized the viability of e-book readers which obviously means Apple is already working on such a product.
3) It will add to Apples growing side business model of being a distributor of media content via the itunes store.
Not sure if you've been following, but I've been arguing against, not for the licensing of Apple's OS to third parties the whole time. Also, while I don't expect anyone to go back and read through pages and pages of posts, if you had gone back to the post that I was referencing, you would have seen I said the following:
Quote:
Originally Posted by wobegon
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.
The bolded part of my comment is what you probably missed. I agree with everything you said of course.
1) Like the Ipod apple would not be first to offer such a device but hopefully Apple will improve on it by offering a superior product in style and performance. The Kindle is nice but it definitely has room for improvement in both looks an usability. I would love to see how Apple would improve on such a device.
2) If I remember correctly Steve Jobs already criticized the viability of e-book readers which obviously means Apple is already working on such a product.
3) It will add to Apples growing side business model of being a distributor of media content via the itunes store.
I would love to see this, too. Ever since that "Nobody reads any more" comment that SJ got raked over the coals for, I've been waiting for the other shoe to drop: "Because they didn't have this...."
Hopefully it won't be some proprietary format, just PDF, .txt, HTML, and, dare I hope? DjVu!
Comments
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.
exactly.
Carniphage sounds like he is less interested in apple succeeding and more interested in microsoft being destroyed.
That's just not the way business works. Capitalism isn't about putting everyone else out of business, it's about making your business successful.
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.
Hardly anyone even knows what Linux is and similarly, what Mac OS X is. Licensing the Apple OS won't magically untie Windows from PCs. So, it'd be similar to adding yet another Linux distro to the list of optional operating systems that aren't advertised or even available when configuring a Dell or HP online.
Carniphage, I think you commented on my statement which I then further expanded on. So, here's the rest of my argument that you might have missed:
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.
exactly.
Carniphage sounds like he is less interested in apple succeeding and more interested in microsoft being destroyed.
That's just not the way business works. Capitalism isn't about putting everyone else out of business, it's about making your business successful.
Not at all.
There is a huge fat revenue stream out there. It is created because every computer sold, is bundled with an OS. Microsoft has *all* of that revenue to themselves because no one is offering any competition.
The best part of capitalism is competition. Because excellence is encouraged.
Apple has a more-excellent OS. To not sell it is a lost opportunity.
Not only does Apple lose out on all that revenue. But I honestly believe that the world is a worse place for Microsoft dominance.
C.
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.[/U][/B][/I]
You don't put pressure on Microsoft by rolling over and playing dead.
Apple is not competing with Microsoft, because Apple is not selling an OS. It only sells computers.
Microsoft maintains a staggering 90% OS share by not selling any computers at all. Instead it out-earns Apple with an almost invisible OEM tax on every computer sold. This tax is paid so that hardware vendors are allowed to ship Vista; A truly terrible product.
So long as Apple refuses to licence OS X, it relegates the worlds best computer operating system to a minor role.
C.
PS. I quite like Microsoft when they make good stuff. The 360 is a pretty good product!
The Surface Computer could be mounted in the wall, or be under a transparent sheet that could be cleaned or replaced. The virtue of it is that diners could order large-size items just by tapping on pictures of them--there'd be no need for a waiter to get involved.
Let's get real here -- Microsoft's Surface announcements were nothing but a weak attempt to grab media attention away from the iPhone. For most applications conventional touch-screen technology is completely adequate, including restaurants, kiosks, museums, etc. The idea that Surface will generate $10 billion in business is ludicrous.
You don't put pressure on Microsoft by rolling over and playing dead.
How is Apple rolling over and playing dead by licensing out its OS to a dead market? Apple is a business, and a smart one. What do businesses want? To be successful and MAKE MONEY!!! There's no MONEY to be made in a DYING MARKET.
Apple is not competing with Microsoft, because Apple is not selling an OS. It only sells computers.
Microsoft maintains a staggering 90% OS share by not selling any computers at all. Instead it out-earns Apple with an almost invisible OEM tax on every computer sold. This tax is paid so that hardware vendors are allowed to ship Vista; A truly terrible product.
You did not just say Microsoft and Apple are not competing with each other, did you?
While Microsoft's OEM tax is hidden in the cost of third party hardware, that hidden price becomes more and more visible as the price of the PC it's being bundled with is. Swap out that Windows license out with Linux, which can be offered virtually free, and you get an even less expensive computer. Apple WILL NOT give away their OS for free. There's no money in giving it away. But Linux can, thanks to its funding by the open source community and...one of its biggest and most powerful supporters...APPLE!!!!
So long as Apple refuses to licence OS X, it relegates the worlds best computer operating system to a minor role.
That's pretty inaccurate. While they can't hope to make a dent in Microsoft's 97% global market share of Windows PCs, Apple's computers are already dominant in the media creation field, doing well in higher education (and increasingly, K-12), science and medical fields, and they have a good 10-20% of the consumer market. But of course, you must know that OS X is not only sold with every new Mac, it's the operating system the....iPhone uses! The iPhone has already displaced all but RIM's established BlackBerry in the smart phone market and it's hardly been out a year. Not only that, the slow-growth juggernaut that is the AppleTV also runs...Mac OS X!!
Not at all.
There is a huge fat revenue stream out there. It is created because every computer sold, is bundled with an OS. Microsoft has *all* of that revenue to themselves because no one is offering any competition.
The best part of capitalism is competition. Because excellence is encouraged.
Apple has a more-excellent OS. To not sell it is a lost opportunity.
Not only does Apple lose out on all that revenue. But I honestly believe that the world is a worse place for Microsoft dominance.
C.
I think your argument is based on the assumption that Apple is going to expand the overall market share of OS X by selling it independent of their computers. I disagree and I think history supports that conclusion.
Back in the 90s, Apple did just that and they were going up against a total abomination called Windows 95 (you think Vista is bad, well ...). It turned out that they didn't expand Mac OS market share at all but instead only shrunk their computer business. It almost ruined the company.
Next example: OS/2 was far superior to Windows 95 but IBM (a huge company with unlimited resources) couldn't get any traction and abandoned the effort.
Next example: NeXT's OpenStep was far superior to anything Microsoft had in operating systems. It went nowhere.
Next example: BeOS.
Today's world: Linux is essentially free and it's barely made any inroad at all beyond the server segment (where it's strong but heavily supported by IT departments).
So, it begs the question... what evidence exists that OS X has a profitable future apart from Apple computers? Anyone who wants OS X is free to go to their nearest Apple store, Best Buy, MicroCenter, etc. and buy an Apple computer (not to mention Apple's website). In fact, there are far more option available to most people to buy an Apple computer as opposed to a Dell computer.
Hardly anyone even knows what Linux is and similarly, what Mac OS X is. Licensing the Apple OS won't magically untie Windows from PCs. So, it'd be similar to adding yet another Linux distro to the list of optional operating systems that aren't advertised or even available when configuring a Dell or HP online.
Carniphage, I think you commented on my statement which I then further expanded on. So, here's the rest of my argument that you might have missed:
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.
Mmm, Dell already sells PCs with Ubuntu pre-installed.
And they cost more than the same and better-spec'd Windows model equivalents. But what Dell does offer, is that the laptop/desktop will work OOB with Ubuntu, as also provides support.
Yet, Dell is a bigger player than say, System76, and still doesn't sell that many Linux PCs...Linux is OK on the desktop, but you'd still have to fairly tech-savy, and willing to deal with vendor issues or devices simply not working, because companies don't work with the open-source community. I don't see most Mac or Windows users being tech-savy or willing to deal devices not working OOB.
Simply put, Linux isn't a competitor to Microsoft or Apple in the desktop arena ATM - it's good, but not something that can just be tossed on a machine, and everything get picked up.
And Apple already tried selling the Mac OS to clone makers. It went nowhere, and ended up huring Apple in the short term, as the clone makers were more aggressive on the pricing, and hurting Apple's bottomline. I still remember UMAX and Motorola selling better spec'd machines than Apple, for less ATM.
I think your argument is based on the assumption that Apple is going to expand the overall market share of OS X by selling it independent of their computers. I disagree and I think history supports that conclusion.
Back in the 90s, Apple did just that and they were going up against a total abomination called Windows 95 (you think Vista is bad, well ...). It turned out that they didn't expand Mac OS market share at all but instead only shrunk their computer business. It almost ruined the company.
This is Argument 1: Cannibalization
If Apple's business is hardware. As it was in the 90s - It is really really important that the hardware be commercially competetive. But back then it was not.
In the 90s, the *only* reason to buy a Mac - was Mac OS.
Which was why it was profoundly dumb to licence the OS to clone makers. They were selling Mac clones which were CHEAPER AND FASTER than Apple's own product. Cannibalization was inevitable.
But that was then and this is now. Has anyone noticed that Apple's hardware stopped sucking a while back?
Once the suckage stops, licensing is a win win!
C.
Footnotes....
Macintosh OS from the 90s never did go up against Windows, Apple OS ran on PowerPC hardware, while Windows 95 ran on Intel. They were never in the ring together.
You forgot to mention that Microsoft created OS/2. And after the trial run, went on to create OS/3 which became Windows NT.
You forgot to mention that NEXTSTEP's failure might have been because it was TIED TO OVERPRICED HARDWARE for most of its existence. Remember the Magnesium Cube? The hardware requirements of NextStep meant that it did not compete with Windows until it was much too late. Fortunately NextStep was salvaged.
BeOS was very clever but very not finished.
Oh, come on, people. It's so obvious.
It will be Apple-branded interactive adult entertainment using multi-touch technology. The possibilities are endless. And the new adult films with this technology will be available same-day.
Why play Super Monkey Ball when you can fondle Jenna Jameson's breasts in real time while waiting at the bus stop?
I can just see the tagline to the ads now... "When I think about you, iTouch myself."
GTSC
So, it begs the question... what evidence exists that OS X has a profitable future apart from Apple computers? Anyone who wants OS X is free to go to their nearest Apple store, Best Buy, MicroCenter, etc. and buy an Apple computer (not to mention Apple's website). In fact, there are far more option available to most people to buy an Apple computer as opposed to a Dell computer.
That's a good question!
The answer is this. Apple only makes a handful of computer lines.
A pro workstation, an all-in-one, a microbox and a couple of laptops.
There are products that people want to buy which Apple will not make for them
Some people want netbooks,
Some people want cheap headless boxes with upgradable hardware.
Some idiots even want tablets.
Apple does not make those products. Apple loses the sale - and Microsoft get the cash and retains the market share.
Leopard OEM would turn that loss into $80 pure profit. Add in iLife and iWork bundle and its closer to $200. That's the same profit as Mac Mini, or a laptop hardware sale.
C.
This is Argument 1: Cannibalization
If Apple's business is hardware. As it was in the 90s - It is really really important that the hardware be commercially competetive. But back then it was not.
In the 90s, the *only* reason to buy a Mac - was Mac OS.
Which was why it was profoundly dumb to licence the OS to clone makers. They were selling Mac clones which were CHEAPER AND FASTER than Apple's own product. Cannibalization was inevitable.
But that was then and this is now. Has anyone noticed that Apple's hardware stopped sucking a while back?
Once the suckage stops, licensing is a win win!
C.
At this point your arguments just seem absurd. I mean, really, you are saying that this is the best time to focus on selling software because the hardware is so great? What the...
I mean basically you are saying that it's ok for apple to license osx to other vendors cause their own hardware is really great and competitive, and therefore will win out against the 3rd party vendors. So what's the point of licensing osx to them in the first place?
I mean it's gotta be one or the other. Either you sell computers (or other devices, say, blackberry or playstation) with your own OS as a complete package or you make just the OS and license it to everyone else. You can't compete with yourself. It may seem like covering yourself on all fronts, but it's just shooting yourself in the foot.
I am not going to return to all of the other arguments for now. But I will touch on cannibalization. The truth is, that it would happen. The 3rd parties would of course offer computers that are slightly cheaper, and are slightly better spec'd out. In reality these will be lower quality products (as where the clones in the 90s) at the cost of lower price and higher specs. At first people would buy into it, screwing up apples hardware sales, and eventually re creating what happened 13 years ago.
The more I argue with you, the more I realize how unlikely what you are saying is.
What if Apple were to standardize on an LED-backlit 1920x1080 22" 24-bit panel
and quad-core CPU? Using these components would reduce Apple's
margins, and leap ahead of All-In-One competitors.
And a big reason against it - Apple has the flexibility to evolve the hardware and software together as well as make leaps. Whereas Microsoft can ask hardware makers to take a risk, they may or may not do so, and are unlikely to do it with their whole hardware range.
To bring it back to the mystery new product and (or is it or?) product transition - Apple structure makes putting a touch screen in its iMacs/Laptops/Displays a risk it could get behind. Or owning the OS and hardware means it can redefine tablet computer hardware and OS, rather than treat the OS and the way it's accessed as independent problems.
(I'm not saying a separate OS and hardware company can't do it - just that there is an advantage in having them in one company)
Not at all.
The best part of capitalism is competition. Because excellence is encouraged.
I've often wished for OSX on other hardware, mainly because I'm a real believer in competition. If a single company gets too much power then the advantages to competition are lost. I'd also like to see iTunes buying from other music stores, or my Nokia phone synchronising playlists with iTunes etc.
As a general rule, you either need a single company with serving people as their main goal, or many companies with making money as their goal... but a single company (or even 2 or 3 companies) with making money as the goal is bad news requiring government involvement and messy goals.
I wouldn't be surprised if the transition is iMac-related.
What if Apple were to standardize on an LED-backlit 22" 24-bit panel
and quad-core CPU? Using these components would reduce Apple's
margins, and leap ahead of All-In-One competitors.
true, it is possible ... but why overhaul iMac while all the statistics points out Laptops are outselling desktops?
to goto QuadCore, iMac requires significant design (motherboard and casing) which not gonna happen (when intel is closing the performance gap between laptop and desktop CPUs as day passes by)
1) Like the Ipod apple would not be first to offer such a device but hopefully Apple will improve on it by offering a superior product in style and performance. The Kindle is nice but it definitely has room for improvement in both looks an usability. I would love to see how Apple would improve on such a device.
2) If I remember correctly Steve Jobs already criticized the viability of e-book readers which obviously means Apple is already working on such a product.
3) It will add to Apples growing side business model of being a distributor of media content via the itunes store.
Not sure if you've been following, but I've been arguing against, not for the licensing of Apple's OS to third parties the whole time. Also, while I don't expect anyone to go back and read through pages and pages of posts, if you had gone back to the post that I was referencing, you would have seen I said the following:
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.
The bolded part of my comment is what you probably missed. I agree with everything you said of course.
I would like to see an apple e-book reader.
1) Like the Ipod apple would not be first to offer such a device but hopefully Apple will improve on it by offering a superior product in style and performance. The Kindle is nice but it definitely has room for improvement in both looks an usability. I would love to see how Apple would improve on such a device.
2) If I remember correctly Steve Jobs already criticized the viability of e-book readers which obviously means Apple is already working on such a product.
3) It will add to Apples growing side business model of being a distributor of media content via the itunes store.
I would love to see this, too. Ever since that "Nobody reads any more" comment that SJ got raked over the coals for, I've been waiting for the other shoe to drop: "Because they didn't have this...."
Hopefully it won't be some proprietary format, just PDF, .txt, HTML, and, dare I hope? DjVu!