Apple plans mystery "product transition" before September's end

1192022242537

Comments

  • Reply 421 of 735
    murphywebmurphyweb Posts: 295member
    While I don't think the new product transition will have anything to do with Apple licensing their OS to anyone else I do think that this will happen someday soon.



    I can certainly see a split within Apple soon into two separate organizations, Apple Home computing and entertainment Inc, and Apple Software Inc. The hardware guys would themselves have to license the OS from the software company and that would also leave the software company to license to other vendors.



    In order to stop cannibalization the hardware company would have to compete more heavily. But any cannibalization would actually be countered by the huge increase of shipments of OSX, the real profit center of the group. And Cannibalization is not going to happen in a large way anyway, the new consumers apple want are the people buying iPods and iPhones now, they do not buy Mac's because of OSX, they will by Mac's because they are Apple Macs. But there are plenty of people out there who would buy a Dell with OSX who would never have dreamed of buying a Mac before. If these people were going to buy a Mac they would do already, most of them don't even know what OSX is. But if Dell started selling it they would start getting an interest, and who knows, when these new consumers buy their next computer they will know what OSX is and may even buy a Mac next time.



    This is a business model that cannot possibly fail. It is a no brainer actually.



    If people really cannot see that there is certainly a chance for this model in the future then I am sorry but you are just blind as to what Apple has been doing for the last few years. This I would imagine was one of the drivers for the move to Intel, the Safari for windows and more effort to ensure Apples consumer products are far more easily bought by traditional windows users.



    If there ever was a time to try this again it is now.



    This has nothing whatsoever to do with any previous attempts at this, Apple is a totally different company, the products are different, the market is different the climate is different.



    If you truly believe this is BS then you need to give better reasons that this has been done before and failed because that has no relevance to this at all.
  • Reply 422 of 735
    sc_marktsc_markt Posts: 1,401member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by GregAlexander View Post


    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.




    You know, I was thinking that maybe this is what the transition is about. Apple would have to lower their prices if they did do this and I think they said they are going to lower prices in the future.
  • Reply 423 of 735
    carniphagecarniphage Posts: 1,984member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by paprochy View Post


    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...




    Exactly, you got it.



    Apple's hardware is reliable, competitive and has unique features. It also has gread brand awareness and good customer loyalty.



    Apple hardware no longer needs mommy's hand to cross the road. The hardware business is good enough to grow at an organic rate. It is growing, it can't grow much faster than it is doing already.



    But Apple software side *is* being held back.

    Software uptake can grow at a geometric rate. Much faster than hardware can. The weakness of Vista at this precise moment in time means that the road is clear. 92% of computers not running OS X. Which means a massive potential for rapid growth.



    Apple has to be quick, and it is hard to be quick if you tie your legs together.



    C.
  • Reply 424 of 735
    paprochypaprochy Posts: 129member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Carniphage View Post


    Exactly, you got it.



    Apple's hardware is reliable, competitive and has unique features. It also has gread brand awareness and good customer loyalty.



    Apple hardware no longer needs mommy's hand to cross the road. The hardware business is good enough to grow at an organic rate. It is growing, it can't grow much faster than it is doing already.



    But Apple software side *is* being held back.

    Software uptake can grow at a geometric rate. Much faster than hardware can. The weakness of Vista at this precise moment in time means that the road is clear. 92% of computers not running OS X. Which means a massive potential for rapid growth.



    Apple has to be quick, and it is hard to be quick if you tie your legs together.



    C.



    Ok, well it may seem like it makes perfect sense to you, but it's perfect nonsense to me.





    Can you name one company that has sold hardware/software packages and additionally sold the OS/software to 3rd parties and did it successfully? I'm sorry, but I can't think of one example. I think Sega at one point started licensing some of it's own games out to other platforms, but we all know what a failure that company was.



    I mean, Apple till this day has not sold any software for non-mac computers. No iwork, no pro apps, nothing. How do you expect them to port their entire operating system when they are even reluctant to sell a few applications outside of their own ecosystem. iTunes and QT don't count because they are free and very necessary for compatibility. Safari is also free, but I actually think it was a mistake to offer that on Windows.
  • Reply 425 of 735
    joedrcjoedrc Posts: 86member
    licensing out OS X would be a mistake.

    What if Apple did get a good portion or the majority of the market to adopt OS X, people would start trying to make malicious viruses for it because the majority use it.



    Apple aren't trying to compete with microsoft
  • Reply 426 of 735
    carniphagecarniphage Posts: 1,984member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by paprochy View Post


    How do you expect them to port their entire operating system when they are even reluctant to sell a few applications outside of their own ecosystem.



    Good grief!



    Apple's OS does not need any "porting". It runs, in case you had not noticed, on bog-standard PC hardware. Any modern PC capable of running Windows will run OS X. The only issue to overcome is that bog-standard PCs do not come with EFI. "Made for OS X" PCs would.



    Kids with a bit of Unix knowledge are already out there are installing OS X on everything from tablets to desktops. Were you not aware of this?





    Quote:
    Originally Posted by paprochy View Post


    Can you name one company that has sold hardware/software packages and additionally sold the OS/software to 3rd parties and did it successfully?



    We have a new one.

    Argument Number 4: "No one messes with the Redmond. It's never been done."



    Microsoft achieves its 90% OS share by not worring about hardware sales. It just sells the OS. It can do this without fear because it tramples the market unchallenged. None dare challenge the authority of the Bill.



    Microsoft's engineers sleep soundly at night, because no one shouts "Cannibalization" at them.



    Occasional nightmares about OS X kicking their ass are brushed away, because when they wake-up, they remember that OS X stays safely corralled-up in far-away cave chained to some hardware.



    Some people may notice that Apple makes it's business out of doing stuff that other people have not done.



    C.
  • Reply 427 of 735
    paprochypaprochy Posts: 129member
    I didn't say that no one ever challenged big bad microsoft. I said no one ever sold products that conflicted with each other. selling software for hardware that competes with your own hardware is just stupid.



    You just don't sell two different products that compete with each other. So Apple will either continue to sell hardware or they will change their strategy and only license their OS to other hardware manufacturers. The way I see it, Apple is sticking to selling computers.
  • Reply 428 of 735
    hudson1hudson1 Posts: 800member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Carniphage View Post


    Good grief!



    Apple's OS does not need any "porting". It runs, in case you had not noticed, on bog-standard PC hardware. Any modern PC capable of running Windows will run OS X. The only issue to overcome is that bog-standard PCs do not come with EFI. "Made for OS X" PCs would.



    Carniphage, just about all of Apple's software (if not all) has been ported to Cocoa and all of it can be easily made to run under Windows. Without doubt, OS X is the one piece of software that would be the most risky to let "out of the house". What's your take on why Apple hasn't attempted to sell any revenue-generating software other than WebObjects (half-heartedly) to the Windows world? Secondly, would you expect Apple to first test the waters with Final Cut Pro, Aperature, etc. before making the bolder move with OS X?
  • Reply 429 of 735
    murphywebmurphyweb Posts: 295member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by paprochy View Post


    I didn't say that no one ever challenged big bad microsoft. I said no one ever sold products that conflicted with each other. selling software for hardware that competes with your own hardware is just stupid.



    You just don't sell two different products that compete with each other. So Apple will either continue to sell hardware or they will change their strategy and only license their OS to other hardware manufacturers. The way I see it, Apple is sticking to selling computers.



    You clearly do not have a clue what you are talking about.



    This happens all the time in business, especially in the software business. I know, my own company not only provides software to other hardware vendors but we also have a product that directly competes with them! We are not alone.





    "You just don't sell two different products that compete with each other"



    More coverage, more ownership of different brands which compete against each other means more market share and although the gross margin suffers through competition the increased sales more than make up for it.



    Don't believe me? Ask Coca Cola, Cadbury's Swcheppes, Proctor and Gamble, do I need to go on?



    If they are going to do this then now is the time. Perfect time in fact.



    Anyone wondering why Microsoft have now decided to start with the anti-Apple marketing campaign? Maybe they sense it too.
  • Reply 430 of 735
    murphywebmurphyweb Posts: 295member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by paprochy View Post


    Can you name one company that has sold hardware/software packages and additionally sold the OS/software to 3rd parties and did it successfully? I'm sorry, but I can't think of one example. I think Sega at one point started licensing some of it's own games out to other platforms, but we all know what a failure that company was.



    Does HTC count?



    Maybe not selling software to 3rd parties but certainly selling it's hardware.



    From Wikipedia..



    Quote:

    High Tech Computer Corporation (TSE: 2498), known by its abbreviation HTC, is a Taiwan-based manufacturer of Microsoft Windows Mobile portable devices. It was founded on May 15, 1997 and was strictly an outsourcing company, an Original Design Manufacturer (ODM). Today, HTC provides its own hTC self-branded products, as well as supporting its operator-branded products and its OEM partners. HTC also owns Dopod as a subsidiary company.



  • Reply 431 of 735
    paprochypaprochy Posts: 129member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by murphyweb View Post


    Does HTC count?



    Maybe not selling software to 3rd parties but certainly selling it's hardware.



    From Wikipedia..



    That is just rebranding.
  • Reply 432 of 735
    jousterjouster Posts: 460member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Mac-sochist View Post


    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...."



    The other shoe dropping would be to admit what utter nonsense the statement was in the first place.



    Not that I wouldn't buy an Apple reader of some description.....
  • Reply 433 of 735
    programmerprogrammer Posts: 3,457member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Carniphage View Post


    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.



    FWIW, this wouldn't be pure profit because there is a support burden to be paid. Especially if non-Apple hardware is to be supported.



    You'd also likely see a low iLife/iWork bundling rate because hardware OEMs don't like to pay for the software that goes on their machines... they are going for the lowest price possible. The cheapest parts go into the machines and they live on much much thinner margins than Apple does. I don't see how you can say that cannibalization wouldn't happen when licensed OEMs start selling apparently equivalent hardware for 30% less than Apple. Would tech savvy users buy the cheap junk without the software bundle? No, probably not. But many users in Apple's market are not savvy which is why they are attracted to Apple in the first place... the promise of a better and simpler solution. And then another vendor says "look, cheap Macs!" and people flock to them.



    I can see licensing happening in a very controlled way for business 2nd and 3rd sourcing, but other than that I think Jobs will keep the Apple software/hardware ecosystem intact and I believe he's correct in doing so.
  • Reply 434 of 735
    guinnessguinness Posts: 473member
    Apple failed the last time they licensed their OS, and likely the same thing would happen now, in that a competitor would come out with a cheaper, faster, perhaps bigger OSX machine, and undercut Apple.



    Hardware is hardware, but the only thing that makes sense for Apple is to keep OSX tied to Apple's expensive hardware and designs, because someone could load it on a cheaper box, (within a limited set of accepted hardware), if the OS was up license.



    Other companies would have none of the hangups about building a mythical xMac that Apple is refusing to do, or using more off-the-shelf desktop parts (LGA 775 mobos and CPUs for example, DDR3, etc), and likely more BTO options and faster refreshes. it would be all over for Macs.
  • Reply 435 of 735
    bpattonbpatton Posts: 19member
    As someone posted much earlier in this massive thread, I too believe that Jobs and Op. are reading through these and laughing their asses off at all of these.



    "Oooh, close. Try again."

    "Hey...that's a good idea. Save it for next quarter."

    "He believes we'll do WHAT?"



    Personally, regardless of what others have said so far, I'm personally waiting for Macbook/Pro line to be combined. All alumnimum casing and feel of the Air, with option to throw in a SSD drive into any of them. Don't see touch screens taking off on the Macbook line YET.



    While I do see some merit to the 'make all iPods touch', I like my clickwheel, and for my mother-in-law, that's about as simple as you can get for her. I may not like it at all, but I do see it eventually happening.
  • Reply 436 of 735
    wobegonwobegon Posts: 764member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by JoeDRC View Post


    licensing out OS X would be a mistake.

    What if Apple did get a good portion or the majority of the market to adopt OS X, people would start trying to make malicious viruses for it because the majority use it.



    The Security Through Obscurity Myth is just that, a myth. While smaller market share does reduce the number of potential attackers, systems are infected because they have flaws, not because an operating system hits some magic number of installed users.



    /off-topic
  • Reply 437 of 735
    wobegonwobegon Posts: 764member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Carniphage View Post


    Microsoft achieves its 90% OS share by not worring about hardware sales. It just sells the OS.



    No, they DON'T. They don't just sell the OS. Microsoft only sells Windows in any major capacity by illegally bundling it with PCs. Windows market share is where it is due to some luck and breaking the law.



    The fatal flaw in your reasoning is your assumption that Apple can just do the same thing: bundle their operating system with new PCs. They CAN'T. That is ILLEGAL. The DoJ didn't give a damn back then and now they can't do a thing about Microsoft's OS monopoly. They sure as hell WOULD stop Apple, Linux, or any other company that tried the same thing today.



    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Carniphage View Post


    Apple's hardware is reliable, competitive and has unique features. It also has gread brand awareness and good customer loyalty.



    Carniphage, just a reminder, you're in an Apple forum. We all know that Apple's products are both great and competitive; you're preaching to the choir. Sorry to disappoint you, but if we are all in agreement about this, repeating it, ad nauseam, doesn't make your assertions any more right than the rest of ours.
  • Reply 438 of 735
    vineavinea Posts: 5,585member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Carniphage View Post


    Exactly, you got it.



    Apple's hardware is reliable, competitive and has unique features. It also has gread brand awareness and good customer loyalty.



    Apple hardware no longer needs mommy's hand to cross the road. The hardware business is good enough to grow at an organic rate. It is growing, it can't grow much faster than it is doing already.



    If OSX ran on any hardware the cannibalization argument wont be theoretical. Apple hardware would sell about as well as all the other Workstations, AIOs and SFF computers: poorly.



    The cost/performance delta is huge and you can pretty much just write off Apple's entire desktop line and they'd sell as much hardware as Sony.



    Notice the lack of Sony in the Top 5 lists?



    Quote:

    But Apple software side *is* being held back.

    Software uptake can grow at a geometric rate. Much faster than hardware can. The weakness of Vista at this precise moment in time means that the road is clear. 92% of computers not running OS X. Which means a massive potential for rapid growth.



    Apple has to be quick, and it is hard to be quick if you tie your legs together.



    C.



    Large numbers of those computers will continue to run XP/Vista because the software they need are Windows only. Everything from business apps to games.



    The number of folks willing to dual boot is tiny. So, the infrastructure to capture that 92% share isn't present and a good chunk of it (MS Office) will get pulled as soon as MS can.



    Your massive potential is illusory.
  • Reply 439 of 735
    olternautolternaut Posts: 1,376member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Carniphage View Post


    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.



    There are a lot of people who want tablets not just idiots. England huh? I guess that makes you an expert of all markets globally.....NOT!
  • Reply 440 of 735
    messiahmessiah Posts: 1,689member
    Just to throw a spanner in the works - would iTunes moving to a subscription based model be regarded as a 'transition'?
Sign In or Register to comment.