You just proved what all of us have been saying for three pages now! Your logic is that Apple makes much more profit than MS because MS doesn't sell the hardware. Subtract the hardware and Apple is doing worse than MS.. But that also proves that the hardware has much higher profit margins. Why in God's name would Apple want to " remove Apple's music and phone revenues. And also remove the computer hardware sales too" to get *down* to Microsoft's level when they can obviously do much better financially, and at the same time satisfy their loyal customers more with their current business model.
"If just 10% of those computers were sold with OS X instead - OS X would double its market share." But since MS has 9 times OS X's marketshare and make much less profit, how would that be a good thing if it came at the expense of Mac hardware sales?
Except Apple doesn't make much more profit than Microsoft.
Apple
Gross Margin (TTM)\t34.34
Gross Margin - 5 Yr. Avg.\t31.83
Operating Margin (TTM)\t18.99
Operating Margin - 5 Yr. Avg.\t15.40
Pre-Tax Margin (TTM)\t20.74
Pre-Tax Margin - 5 Yr. Avg.\t17.24
Net Profit Margin (TTM)\t14.70
Net Profit Margin - 5 Yr. Avg.\t12.15
Effective Tax Rate (TTM)\t29.11
Effecitve Tax Rate - 5 Yr. Avg.\t29.50
Microsoft
Gross Margin (TTM)\t80.42
Gross Margin - 5 Yr. Avg.\t81.69
Operating Margin (TTM)\t34.61
Operating Margin - 5 Yr. Avg.\t34.46
Pre-Tax Margin (TTM)\t36.15
Pre-Tax Margin - 5 Yr. Avg.\t39.15
Net Profit Margin (TTM)\t27.80
Net Profit Margin - 5 Yr. Avg.\t27.86
Effective Tax Rate (TTM)\t23.10
Effecitve Tax Rate - 5 Yr. Avg.\t28.83
Numbers taken from Reuters.
Microsoft beats Apple in every category for margins, and that includes the dismal performance for Xbox and Zune. Software can be much more profitable than hardware. Try looking up some of Dell's numbers.
With this said, I still don't think or recommend Apple lisence OS X to clone manufacturers.
To my mind, software has much more potential for growth.
I understand your point and it seems logical, but I do think that operating system software is a different beast.
In a nutshell:
Focussing on just OS software will stifle innovation in the long run. Both hardware and software.
And we don't want that.
We've discussed this dozens of times in other forums. The main obstacle for Microsoft is that any innovation it might wants to do can fall on deaf ears with hardware manufacturers.
What if Apple invests a lot of time and money to develop OpenCL only to receive lukewarm adoption of dual GPU systems? That would be really bad for business, spending a lot of money on technology that goes wasted.
Yet what guarantee would Apple have that manufacturers will put in dual GPUs? None. As it only controls software. Apple might have to forge deals with certain manufacturers, angering others. It's a mess.
Apple would bear this risk with every single OS innovation that requires hardware to play along.
That prospect is just bad.
Yet it also goes the other way.
Remember how peripheral vendors tried to push USB but Microsoft just dragged its feet in adding it to the OS?
USB didn't happen until Apple adopted it in its iMac.
This is another example of innovation faltering due to hardware and operating system software being in two different hands.
The whole thing is just bad for the consumer and bad for innovation.
Apple is in such a unique position because they are the only computer hardware manufacturer and OS developer in the whole world.
Why would they give all that up to mimic a Microsoft model which doesn't work that well either - at least in the long run?
Perhaps there is another way?
But I can't see one. The result is always the least common denominator on all sides: weak operating system software only supporting the most generic case and weak hardware never introducing anything radically new.
And as for Apple. Once they fully own the high-price segment, who says they can't develop a completely new operating system platform with matching new hardware for the low end market? Developing both hard- and software they have the power to bypass any established system.
Focussing on just OS software will stifle innovation in the long run. Both hardware and software.
And we don't want that.
We've discussed this dozens of times in other forums. The main obstacle for Microsoft is that any innovation it might wants to do can fall on deaf ears with hardware manufacturers.
Although I think Apple should monetize OS X directly as an OEM operating system, it would be a mistake to slavishly clone Microsoft's business model.
Apple can position OS X as the best personal computer operating system - and position the Mac as the best computer to run OS X. Apple would then continue to innovate in the hardware space.
But not the *only* computer to run OSX.
There is a good illustration of how Apple might handle other manufacturers with its "Made for iPod" stickers. To get the sticker, a 3rd part iPod accessory manufacturer has to
a) Pay Apple
b) Build a product that complies with Apple's technical requirements.
No compliance, no sticker.
To win a "Made for OSX" sticker. You'd have to meet Apple's hardware requirements and use either Apple's own drivers or have Apple validate the drivers.
By rigorously enforcing compliance, Apple can avoid the situation that leaves Microsoft in such a mess; Leaving users the nightmarish task of hunting-down and maintaining the right drivers for their hardware.
I just don't see the big market for OS X that's being talked about especially when you consider that it will cause a large cost premium for a user of a non-Apple computer versus its Windows variant. There aren't that many people out there who refuse to buy a Windows computer. They just want a computer. The rest of us, to whom it matters, have bought an Apple.
We've covered this before but maybe it's worth repeating....
Microsoft makes much more money on Office than Windows by most every expert's estimation.
Windows is Microsoft's means of ensuring their ecosystem via Office, WMP, etc.
I just don't see the big market for OS X that's being talked about especially when you consider that it will cause a large cost premium for a user of a non-Apple computer versus its Windows variant.
There's a significant amount of Windows dis-satisfaction in the marketplace. Particularly with Vista.
There's a significant problem with virus and worm issues:
And there is an issue where hardware manufacturers are keen to offer a credible alternative to Windows, because Microsoft has them over a barrel. They really want competition in this market to break the Microsoft monopoly.
And iPod and iPhone are currently creating a positive buzz for Apple.
These factors are enough to cause a bit of a swing in the polls. From purely anecdotal evidence, I'd say that the demand for a better-OS-than-Vista is greater than the demand for Macintosh computers.
If only a modest fraction of new PC buyers opted to buy OS X / iLife instead of Vista it would result in a very dramatic increase in the total number of OS X installations. And that is territory worth owning.
And there is an issue where hardware manufacturers are keen to offer a credible alternative to Windows, because Microsoft has them over a barrel. They really want competition in this market to break the Microsoft monopoly.
And iPod and iPhone are currently creating a positive buzz for Apple.
These factors are enough to cause a bit of a swing in the polls. From purely anecdotal evidence, I'd say that the demand for a better-OS-than-Vista is greater than the demand for Macintosh computers.
If only a modest fraction of new PC buyers opted to buy OS X / iLife instead of Vista it would result in a very dramatic increase in the total number of OS X installations. And that is territory worth owning.
C.
If you make the leap to a business model of installing OS X on a non-Apple computer, you're now competing with more than just Microsoft... you're also now competing with Linux and it's FREE.
If this was an effective strategy, I don't think we would have seen the prior dramatic failures of OS/2 and BeOS. We should remember that many said BeOS is what Apple should have adopted, not NeXTStep. And despite being free, Linux has gained very little traction in the PC business outside of the very bottom of the market, that segment most attuned to the idea of free.
There's so little track record to suggest that Apple is going to be successful in such a venture. The stronger likelihood is they kill their company just like they almost did 10 years ago.
By rigorously enforcing compliance, Apple can avoid the situation that leaves Microsoft in such a mess; Leaving users the nightmarish task of hunting-down and maintaining the right drivers for their hardware.
C.
But if the compliance of hardware is built on having the same parts as built into a Mac (as is needed to be able to use the Apple supplied drivers), the price of that hardware will be the same as a Mac from Apple, or even higher. Apple buys a lot of hardware, so has nice discounts.
How can the PC builder then have an advantage to Apple?
Apple will not want to have a price fight, as that will not be good for all the companies involved (See the other PC builders, most of them do not make a lot of profit on selling PCs).
Why then will a customer buy a non-Apple 'Mac'? Not price. It is not a 'real' Apple Mac, so people will shun it, as they expect non-compatibility.
I have seen what happened when the clones were available. I have used them (We had one at my job) and hated the machine for its non-polished integration. Yes, it was fast. Faster than any other machine we had. But the problems we had with the system software were not nice.
Even then Apple had defined a reference platform (Actually two: PReP and CHRP) that could be built by other companies.
Problem was, they did not use it...
Only Microsoft is able to separate the OS from the hardware. For no other consumer products is that idea used.
No separate 'car os', 'router os', 'dvd player os' or 'mobile phone os' that you can buy in the store.
Microsoft is only able to do it because it has such a large market-share.
No other OS is a real success. Not Linux, not BSDs, BeOS failed, OS/2 failed. Any others?
(One of the reasons is the monopolistic agreements Microsoft has (had?) with OEMS. Do not sell other OSes, or your Windows license will be more expensive. As the Windows license is a large part of the price of the BOM, the OEMs will listen.)
It seems really a Windows-tax.
Why do you think that Apple will succeed in having a software-only solution if a lot of other companies failed?
I really hope and think that Apple will not sell a software-only package.
Also interesting to note is the fact that Apple may have a smaller slice of the unit shipments, it has a huge part of the revenue and profit pie... (I thought it was about 1/3rd?)
Except Apple doesn't make much more profit than Microsoft.
Apple
Gross Margin (TTM)\t34.34
Gross Margin - 5 Yr. Avg.\t31.83
Operating Margin (TTM)\t18.99
Operating Margin - 5 Yr. Avg.\t15.40
Pre-Tax Margin (TTM)\t20.74
Pre-Tax Margin - 5 Yr. Avg.\t17.24
Net Profit Margin (TTM)\t14.70
Net Profit Margin - 5 Yr. Avg.\t12.15
Effective Tax Rate (TTM)\t29.11
Effecitve Tax Rate - 5 Yr. Avg.\t29.50
Microsoft
Gross Margin (TTM)\t80.42
Gross Margin - 5 Yr. Avg.\t81.69
Operating Margin (TTM)\t34.61
Operating Margin - 5 Yr. Avg.\t34.46
Pre-Tax Margin (TTM)\t36.15
Pre-Tax Margin - 5 Yr. Avg.\t39.15
Net Profit Margin (TTM)\t27.80
Net Profit Margin - 5 Yr. Avg.\t27.86
Effective Tax Rate (TTM)\t23.10
Effecitve Tax Rate - 5 Yr. Avg.\t28.83
Numbers taken from Reuters.
Microsoft beats Apple in every category for margins, and that includes the dismal performance for Xbox and Zune. Software can be much more profitable than hardware. Try looking up some of Dell's numbers.
With this said, I still don't think or recommend Apple lisence OS X to clone manufacturers.
But what if you compare this with other software makers?
Here we go again: OS X licensing; comparing Apple with Microsoft.
Please keep in mind that Microsoft succeeded in placing itself in a unique position. No other company in the software business will be able to displace Microsoft from that position or successfully implement Microsoft's business model. In fact, even Microsoft understands that their model is virtually dead. It will bring profits for a while, but they desperately need a replacement.
Even if Dell/HP/whoever is interested in licensing Mac OS, they will be the first who will block Apple from becoming a new Microsoft. Their main interest in licensing Mac OS could be to use it as a weapon against Microsoft, not to promote Apple. Comparing Apple and Microsoft profits/margins to support OS licensing idea is absolutely insane. Go ahead and compare Mac OS and Linux profits, anyone?
Apple has a very different business model and their top executives don't keep it in secret:
They view the hardware as a platform for their software.
This means that the two components are very tightly related. Your hardware features blue plastic enclosure - make your UI Aqua. The hardware is aluminum - change the UI accordingly. You want to promote the multi-core and GPGPU features of your OS - make sure all of your hardware, from top to bottom, supports it. Otherwise the message will be blurred. And it will not make business sense to focus all the development for the higher 3-5 percent of the market.
If they license the OS, the HW vendors will take the command on what to do next in software. There will be a push for 100 features at any time, and 99 of them will boil down to the following: include support for the next cheeper crap out there.
Please remember that Steve already tried that path with Next and pre-Steve Apple tried this independently, licensing OS 7 to a number of vendors. Both attempts failed spectacularly.
I can remember a zillion times SJ quoting Gretzky - "I skate to where the puck is going to be, not to where it has been." Microsoft business model, Win32 API - this is the past, not the future.
The problem here is that the Windows API is quite a different animal from any of the Core services, Carbon, or Cocoa. In fact, there are several incompatibilities that would sabotage this idea. First off, the Windows API is not completely documented for the developers: it's very well known that Microsoft applications get access to function calls that are not available to anyone else. Second, Windows' low-level API uses C++ which involves quite a different animal when it comes to code generation compared to Objective-C; getting the two to get along with respect to memory allocation -- and far more importantly, deallocation -- is asking for the entire Mac OS X system to introduce random crashes and protection exceptions. Very bad stuff.
Then there's critical danger #1: the Windows API is horribly designed from the word go with respect to system security. Many functions cannot execute properly without root privileges. Buffer overruns and stack manipulation continue to plague the Windows platform. Well, it's the design of the API itself that allows these kinds of virus invasions. Basically you'd be giving every Windows worm an entry point into the Mac's protected core.
Considering the problems introduced by attempting to bring the Windows API into XCode, I think it's better to just run Windows in an emulation layer.
methinks you did not read what we wrote. we were talking about apple allowing xcode to deliver OS X apps to windows, NOT the other way around...
To be honest, that sounds like a good idea... But Apple will not do it this way. It sounds perfectly common sense, sounds like a "safe bet" over the next 1 to 10 years. Which means Apple will not do it. Apple is really not at a stage where it will want to compromise its nice Mac gross profit margins.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Carniphage
Although I think Apple should monetize OS X directly as an OEM operating system, it would be a mistake to slavishly clone Microsoft's business model.
Apple can position OS X as the best personal computer operating system - and position the Mac as the best computer to run OS X. Apple would then continue to innovate in the hardware space.
But not the *only* computer to run OSX.
There is a good illustration of how Apple might handle other manufacturers with its "Made for iPod" stickers. To get the sticker, a 3rd part iPod accessory manufacturer has to
a) Pay Apple
b) Build a product that complies with Apple's technical requirements.
No compliance, no sticker.
To win a "Made for OSX" sticker. You'd have to meet Apple's hardware requirements and use either Apple's own drivers or have Apple validate the drivers.
By rigorously enforcing compliance, Apple can avoid the situation that leaves Microsoft in such a mess; Leaving users the nightmarish task of hunting-down and maintaining the right drivers for their hardware.
Third parties can have thinner margins. They can offer non-premium computers or they can simply offer products that Apple won't build.
Thinner margins is probably not interesting for the third party.
They now have thin margins in the Wintel camp, why would they want more thin margins in the Mac camp? Also, with an expensive OS X license (you were implying that Apple could price the license so high that the profit of the not-sold hardware would be made good), the price difference between Apple and the third party will be minimal. The only place where the third party can then decrease costs is in support. An badly supported 'Mac' is not in Apples interest.
Also, lets assume that the resulting product is cheaper than the real Mac, you have the price fight that I mentioned.
That is not something Apple wants. Currently Apple competes against the cheaper PCs by having a tightly integrated and designed machine instead of a beige box and the fact that the Mac is running OS X.
(Looking at the premium segment, Apple is actually not expensive)
That would disappear if third parties are allowed to make beige boxes.
Having non-premium computers is not in the interest of Apple. A cheap computer without performance gives a bad example and will not allow Apple to expect a certain performance in a certain timeline of machines: Currently all Macs are at least dual core and 64-bits.
People are buying Apple hardware, so there is not really a problem there.
Also, the same as the last time Apple allowed clones, the third parties did not want the low end of the spectrum, as no money is to be made there. They will go after the high end, where Apple makes nice profits.
Quote:
Apple's current business is as much about *not* building products as about building products.
People on this forum will tell you about how Apple does not offer a Tablet, or a Netbook, or a Mini Tower.
Indeed some types of hardware are missing. I personally would like to have an xMac.
But for the other types you mention:
- Tablet is not a success in the PC industry. Why would it be a success in the Mac industry?
Also, Apple needs to add more support for tablets to OS X, so no third party can make one yet.
If Apple creates a tablet, it will have a twist and be a success. Apple indeed chooses products, but also only makes something when they can add something to it.
- Netbook: Currently an underpowered, cramped laptop not able to run the latest Microsoft OS. People need Windows XP for that, which is an OS MS has declared dead a number of times already. (Linux is no success in the consumer space, so that is not an option)
I agree with Cook at the financial results conference call: People will not be happy with it.
Also, this is the kind of underpowered hardware I mentioned earlier, giving Apple problems in the future when they want to improve OS X.
And dual core 64-bit netbook with a nice GPU will be rather expensive...
Thirdly, I agree with the person from AMD that the 'Netbook' will grow up into performance and all laptops will be a single group again. Some of the more expensive 'netbooks' are more expensive than the cheaper laptops!
Quote:
Third parties can create computers and try to sell them. Regardless of whether they succeed or not. Apple would profit from the OEM licence fees.
C.
Third parties failing all over the place is not good for Apple. That way OS X will be blamed, not the companies. Not good.
(You see the same in the car industry. How many of the managers of the car makers take the blame for making cars the consumer does not want to buy? It is always somebody/thing else, such as 'the economy')
As mentioned before, the OEM licence fees will not be enough for Apple to take the trouble.
Looking at it, Apple chooses to not have the clone wars back and is doing great for it.
methinks you did not read what we wrote. we were talking about apple allowing xcode to deliver OS X apps to windows, NOT the other way around...
Hmm, my bad. I must have missed that part. I guess my first question is what would justify the expense and complications involved in opening the Windows API to XCode?
Comments
"If just 10% of those computers were sold with OS X instead - OS X would double its market share." But since MS has 9 times OS X's marketshare and make much less profit, how would that be a good thing if it came at the expense of Mac hardware sales?
Except Apple doesn't make much more profit than Microsoft.
Apple
Gross Margin (TTM)\t34.34
Gross Margin - 5 Yr. Avg.\t31.83
Operating Margin (TTM)\t18.99
Operating Margin - 5 Yr. Avg.\t15.40
Pre-Tax Margin (TTM)\t20.74
Pre-Tax Margin - 5 Yr. Avg.\t17.24
Net Profit Margin (TTM)\t14.70
Net Profit Margin - 5 Yr. Avg.\t12.15
Effective Tax Rate (TTM)\t29.11
Effecitve Tax Rate - 5 Yr. Avg.\t29.50
Microsoft
Gross Margin (TTM)\t80.42
Gross Margin - 5 Yr. Avg.\t81.69
Operating Margin (TTM)\t34.61
Operating Margin - 5 Yr. Avg.\t34.46
Pre-Tax Margin (TTM)\t36.15
Pre-Tax Margin - 5 Yr. Avg.\t39.15
Net Profit Margin (TTM)\t27.80
Net Profit Margin - 5 Yr. Avg.\t27.86
Effective Tax Rate (TTM)\t23.10
Effecitve Tax Rate - 5 Yr. Avg.\t28.83
Numbers taken from Reuters.
Microsoft beats Apple in every category for margins, and that includes the dismal performance for Xbox and Zune. Software can be much more profitable than hardware. Try looking up some of Dell's numbers.
With this said, I still don't think or recommend Apple lisence OS X to clone manufacturers.
To my mind, software has much more potential for growth.
I understand your point and it seems logical, but I do think that operating system software is a different beast.
In a nutshell:
Focussing on just OS software will stifle innovation in the long run. Both hardware and software.
And we don't want that.
We've discussed this dozens of times in other forums. The main obstacle for Microsoft is that any innovation it might wants to do can fall on deaf ears with hardware manufacturers.
What if Apple invests a lot of time and money to develop OpenCL only to receive lukewarm adoption of dual GPU systems? That would be really bad for business, spending a lot of money on technology that goes wasted.
Yet what guarantee would Apple have that manufacturers will put in dual GPUs? None. As it only controls software. Apple might have to forge deals with certain manufacturers, angering others. It's a mess.
Apple would bear this risk with every single OS innovation that requires hardware to play along.
That prospect is just bad.
Yet it also goes the other way.
Remember how peripheral vendors tried to push USB but Microsoft just dragged its feet in adding it to the OS?
USB didn't happen until Apple adopted it in its iMac.
This is another example of innovation faltering due to hardware and operating system software being in two different hands.
The whole thing is just bad for the consumer and bad for innovation.
Apple is in such a unique position because they are the only computer hardware manufacturer and OS developer in the whole world.
Why would they give all that up to mimic a Microsoft model which doesn't work that well either - at least in the long run?
Perhaps there is another way?
But I can't see one. The result is always the least common denominator on all sides: weak operating system software only supporting the most generic case and weak hardware never introducing anything radically new.
And as for Apple. Once they fully own the high-price segment, who says they can't develop a completely new operating system platform with matching new hardware for the low end market? Developing both hard- and software they have the power to bypass any established system.
iPod touch tablet/netbook anyone?
In a nutshell:
Focussing on just OS software will stifle innovation in the long run. Both hardware and software.
And we don't want that.
We've discussed this dozens of times in other forums. The main obstacle for Microsoft is that any innovation it might wants to do can fall on deaf ears with hardware manufacturers.
Although I think Apple should monetize OS X directly as an OEM operating system, it would be a mistake to slavishly clone Microsoft's business model.
Apple can position OS X as the best personal computer operating system - and position the Mac as the best computer to run OS X. Apple would then continue to innovate in the hardware space.
But not the *only* computer to run OSX.
There is a good illustration of how Apple might handle other manufacturers with its "Made for iPod" stickers. To get the sticker, a 3rd part iPod accessory manufacturer has to
a) Pay Apple
b) Build a product that complies with Apple's technical requirements.
No compliance, no sticker.
To win a "Made for OSX" sticker. You'd have to meet Apple's hardware requirements and use either Apple's own drivers or have Apple validate the drivers.
By rigorously enforcing compliance, Apple can avoid the situation that leaves Microsoft in such a mess; Leaving users the nightmarish task of hunting-down and maintaining the right drivers for their hardware.
C.
We've covered this before but maybe it's worth repeating....
Microsoft makes much more money on Office than Windows by most every expert's estimation.
Windows is Microsoft's means of ensuring their ecosystem via Office, WMP, etc.
I just don't see the big market for OS X that's being talked about especially when you consider that it will cause a large cost premium for a user of a non-Apple computer versus its Windows variant.
There's a significant amount of Windows dis-satisfaction in the marketplace. Particularly with Vista.
There's a significant problem with virus and worm issues:
http://www.vnunet.com/vnunet/news/22...ts-million-pcs
Note the cost of removing Conficker on a single machine may be enough to justify the OS X premium.
http://support.microsoft.com/kb/962007
And there is an issue where hardware manufacturers are keen to offer a credible alternative to Windows, because Microsoft has them over a barrel. They really want competition in this market to break the Microsoft monopoly.
And iPod and iPhone are currently creating a positive buzz for Apple.
These factors are enough to cause a bit of a swing in the polls. From purely anecdotal evidence, I'd say that the demand for a better-OS-than-Vista is greater than the demand for Macintosh computers.
If only a modest fraction of new PC buyers opted to buy OS X / iLife instead of Vista it would result in a very dramatic increase in the total number of OS X installations. And that is territory worth owning.
C.
There's a significant amount of Windows dis-satisfaction in the marketplace. Particularly with Vista.
There's a significant problem with virus and worm issues:
http://www.vnunet.com/vnunet/news/22...ts-million-pcs
Note the cost of removing Conficker on a single machine may be enough to justify the OS X premium.
http://support.microsoft.com/kb/962007
And there is an issue where hardware manufacturers are keen to offer a credible alternative to Windows, because Microsoft has them over a barrel. They really want competition in this market to break the Microsoft monopoly.
And iPod and iPhone are currently creating a positive buzz for Apple.
These factors are enough to cause a bit of a swing in the polls. From purely anecdotal evidence, I'd say that the demand for a better-OS-than-Vista is greater than the demand for Macintosh computers.
If only a modest fraction of new PC buyers opted to buy OS X / iLife instead of Vista it would result in a very dramatic increase in the total number of OS X installations. And that is territory worth owning.
C.
If you make the leap to a business model of installing OS X on a non-Apple computer, you're now competing with more than just Microsoft... you're also now competing with Linux and it's FREE.
If this was an effective strategy, I don't think we would have seen the prior dramatic failures of OS/2 and BeOS. We should remember that many said BeOS is what Apple should have adopted, not NeXTStep. And despite being free, Linux has gained very little traction in the PC business outside of the very bottom of the market, that segment most attuned to the idea of free.
There's so little track record to suggest that Apple is going to be successful in such a venture. The stronger likelihood is they kill their company just like they almost did 10 years ago.
By rigorously enforcing compliance, Apple can avoid the situation that leaves Microsoft in such a mess; Leaving users the nightmarish task of hunting-down and maintaining the right drivers for their hardware.
C.
But if the compliance of hardware is built on having the same parts as built into a Mac (as is needed to be able to use the Apple supplied drivers), the price of that hardware will be the same as a Mac from Apple, or even higher. Apple buys a lot of hardware, so has nice discounts.
How can the PC builder then have an advantage to Apple?
Apple will not want to have a price fight, as that will not be good for all the companies involved (See the other PC builders, most of them do not make a lot of profit on selling PCs).
Why then will a customer buy a non-Apple 'Mac'? Not price. It is not a 'real' Apple Mac, so people will shun it, as they expect non-compatibility.
I have seen what happened when the clones were available. I have used them (We had one at my job) and hated the machine for its non-polished integration. Yes, it was fast. Faster than any other machine we had. But the problems we had with the system software were not nice.
Even then Apple had defined a reference platform (Actually two: PReP and CHRP) that could be built by other companies.
Problem was, they did not use it...
Only Microsoft is able to separate the OS from the hardware. For no other consumer products is that idea used.
No separate 'car os', 'router os', 'dvd player os' or 'mobile phone os' that you can buy in the store.
Microsoft is only able to do it because it has such a large market-share.
No other OS is a real success. Not Linux, not BSDs, BeOS failed, OS/2 failed. Any others?
(One of the reasons is the monopolistic agreements Microsoft has (had?) with OEMS. Do not sell other OSes, or your Windows license will be more expensive. As the Windows license is a large part of the price of the BOM, the OEMs will listen.)
It seems really a Windows-tax.
Why do you think that Apple will succeed in having a software-only solution if a lot of other companies failed?
I really hope and think that Apple will not sell a software-only package.
Also interesting to note is the fact that Apple may have a smaller slice of the unit shipments, it has a huge part of the revenue and profit pie... (I thought it was about 1/3rd?)
C.
Except Apple doesn't make much more profit than Microsoft.
Apple
Gross Margin (TTM)\t34.34
Gross Margin - 5 Yr. Avg.\t31.83
Operating Margin (TTM)\t18.99
Operating Margin - 5 Yr. Avg.\t15.40
Pre-Tax Margin (TTM)\t20.74
Pre-Tax Margin - 5 Yr. Avg.\t17.24
Net Profit Margin (TTM)\t14.70
Net Profit Margin - 5 Yr. Avg.\t12.15
Effective Tax Rate (TTM)\t29.11
Effecitve Tax Rate - 5 Yr. Avg.\t29.50
Microsoft
Gross Margin (TTM)\t80.42
Gross Margin - 5 Yr. Avg.\t81.69
Operating Margin (TTM)\t34.61
Operating Margin - 5 Yr. Avg.\t34.46
Pre-Tax Margin (TTM)\t36.15
Pre-Tax Margin - 5 Yr. Avg.\t39.15
Net Profit Margin (TTM)\t27.80
Net Profit Margin - 5 Yr. Avg.\t27.86
Effective Tax Rate (TTM)\t23.10
Effecitve Tax Rate - 5 Yr. Avg.\t28.83
Numbers taken from Reuters.
Microsoft beats Apple in every category for margins, and that includes the dismal performance for Xbox and Zune. Software can be much more profitable than hardware. Try looking up some of Dell's numbers.
With this said, I still don't think or recommend Apple lisence OS X to clone manufacturers.
But what if you compare this with other software makers?
What about other OS companies?
How can the PC builder then have an advantage to Apple?
Third parties can have thinner margins. They can offer non-premium computers or they can simply offer products that Apple won't build.
Apple's current business is as much about *not* building products as about building products.
People on this forum will tell you about how Apple does not offer a Tablet, or a Netbook, or a Mini Tower.
Third parties can create computers and try to sell them. Regardless of whether they succeed or not. Apple would profit from the OEM licence fees.
C.
I don't want them to change how they operate, I just want some new "insanely great" products.
Please keep in mind that Microsoft succeeded in placing itself in a unique position. No other company in the software business will be able to displace Microsoft from that position or successfully implement Microsoft's business model. In fact, even Microsoft understands that their model is virtually dead. It will bring profits for a while, but they desperately need a replacement.
Even if Dell/HP/whoever is interested in licensing Mac OS, they will be the first who will block Apple from becoming a new Microsoft. Their main interest in licensing Mac OS could be to use it as a weapon against Microsoft, not to promote Apple. Comparing Apple and Microsoft profits/margins to support OS licensing idea is absolutely insane. Go ahead and compare Mac OS and Linux profits, anyone?
Apple has a very different business model and their top executives don't keep it in secret:
They view the hardware as a platform for their software.
This means that the two components are very tightly related. Your hardware features blue plastic enclosure - make your UI Aqua. The hardware is aluminum - change the UI accordingly. You want to promote the multi-core and GPGPU features of your OS - make sure all of your hardware, from top to bottom, supports it. Otherwise the message will be blurred. And it will not make business sense to focus all the development for the higher 3-5 percent of the market.
If they license the OS, the HW vendors will take the command on what to do next in software. There will be a push for 100 features at any time, and 99 of them will boil down to the following: include support for the next cheeper crap out there.
Please remember that Steve already tried that path with Next and pre-Steve Apple tried this independently, licensing OS 7 to a number of vendors. Both attempts failed spectacularly.
I can remember a zillion times SJ quoting Gretzky - "I skate to where the puck is going to be, not to where it has been." Microsoft business model, Win32 API - this is the past, not the future.
The problem here is that the Windows API is quite a different animal from any of the Core services, Carbon, or Cocoa. In fact, there are several incompatibilities that would sabotage this idea. First off, the Windows API is not completely documented for the developers: it's very well known that Microsoft applications get access to function calls that are not available to anyone else. Second, Windows' low-level API uses C++ which involves quite a different animal when it comes to code generation compared to Objective-C; getting the two to get along with respect to memory allocation -- and far more importantly, deallocation -- is asking for the entire Mac OS X system to introduce random crashes and protection exceptions. Very bad stuff.
Then there's critical danger #1: the Windows API is horribly designed from the word go with respect to system security. Many functions cannot execute properly without root privileges. Buffer overruns and stack manipulation continue to plague the Windows platform. Well, it's the design of the API itself that allows these kinds of virus invasions. Basically you'd be giving every Windows worm an entry point into the Mac's protected core.
Considering the problems introduced by attempting to bring the Windows API into XCode, I think it's better to just run Windows in an emulation layer.
methinks you did not read what we wrote. we were talking about apple allowing xcode to deliver OS X apps to windows, NOT the other way around...
Although I think Apple should monetize OS X directly as an OEM operating system, it would be a mistake to slavishly clone Microsoft's business model.
Apple can position OS X as the best personal computer operating system - and position the Mac as the best computer to run OS X. Apple would then continue to innovate in the hardware space.
But not the *only* computer to run OSX.
There is a good illustration of how Apple might handle other manufacturers with its "Made for iPod" stickers. To get the sticker, a 3rd part iPod accessory manufacturer has to
a) Pay Apple
b) Build a product that complies with Apple's technical requirements.
No compliance, no sticker.
To win a "Made for OSX" sticker. You'd have to meet Apple's hardware requirements and use either Apple's own drivers or have Apple validate the drivers.
By rigorously enforcing compliance, Apple can avoid the situation that leaves Microsoft in such a mess; Leaving users the nightmarish task of hunting-down and maintaining the right drivers for their hardware.
C.
Third parties can have thinner margins. They can offer non-premium computers or they can simply offer products that Apple won't build.
Thinner margins is probably not interesting for the third party.
They now have thin margins in the Wintel camp, why would they want more thin margins in the Mac camp? Also, with an expensive OS X license (you were implying that Apple could price the license so high that the profit of the not-sold hardware would be made good), the price difference between Apple and the third party will be minimal. The only place where the third party can then decrease costs is in support. An badly supported 'Mac' is not in Apples interest.
Also, lets assume that the resulting product is cheaper than the real Mac, you have the price fight that I mentioned.
That is not something Apple wants. Currently Apple competes against the cheaper PCs by having a tightly integrated and designed machine instead of a beige box and the fact that the Mac is running OS X.
(Looking at the premium segment, Apple is actually not expensive)
That would disappear if third parties are allowed to make beige boxes.
Having non-premium computers is not in the interest of Apple. A cheap computer without performance gives a bad example and will not allow Apple to expect a certain performance in a certain timeline of machines: Currently all Macs are at least dual core and 64-bits.
People are buying Apple hardware, so there is not really a problem there.
Also, the same as the last time Apple allowed clones, the third parties did not want the low end of the spectrum, as no money is to be made there. They will go after the high end, where Apple makes nice profits.
Apple's current business is as much about *not* building products as about building products.
People on this forum will tell you about how Apple does not offer a Tablet, or a Netbook, or a Mini Tower.
Indeed some types of hardware are missing. I personally would like to have an xMac.
But for the other types you mention:
- Tablet is not a success in the PC industry. Why would it be a success in the Mac industry?
Also, Apple needs to add more support for tablets to OS X, so no third party can make one yet.
If Apple creates a tablet, it will have a twist and be a success. Apple indeed chooses products, but also only makes something when they can add something to it.
- Netbook: Currently an underpowered, cramped laptop not able to run the latest Microsoft OS. People need Windows XP for that, which is an OS MS has declared dead a number of times already. (Linux is no success in the consumer space, so that is not an option)
I agree with Cook at the financial results conference call: People will not be happy with it.
Also, this is the kind of underpowered hardware I mentioned earlier, giving Apple problems in the future when they want to improve OS X.
And dual core 64-bit netbook with a nice GPU will be rather expensive...
Thirdly, I agree with the person from AMD that the 'Netbook' will grow up into performance and all laptops will be a single group again. Some of the more expensive 'netbooks' are more expensive than the cheaper laptops!
Third parties can create computers and try to sell them. Regardless of whether they succeed or not. Apple would profit from the OEM licence fees.
C.
Third parties failing all over the place is not good for Apple. That way OS X will be blamed, not the companies. Not good.
(You see the same in the car industry. How many of the managers of the car makers take the blame for making cars the consumer does not want to buy? It is always somebody/thing else, such as 'the economy')
As mentioned before, the OEM licence fees will not be enough for Apple to take the trouble.
Looking at it, Apple chooses to not have the clone wars back and is doing great for it.
methinks you did not read what we wrote. we were talking about apple allowing xcode to deliver OS X apps to windows, NOT the other way around...
Hmm, my bad. I must have missed that part. I guess my first question is what would justify the expense and complications involved in opening the Windows API to XCode?
But what if you compare this with other software makers?
What about other OS companies?
Adobe
Gross Margin (TTM)\t89.87
Gross Margin - 5 Yr. Avg.\t90.52
Operating Margin (TTM)\t28.72
Operating Margin - 5 Yr. Avg.\t29.02
Pre-Tax Margin (TTM)\t30.13
Pre-Tax Margin - 5 Yr. Avg.\t31.51
Net Profit Margin (TTM)\t24.35
Net Profit Margin - 5 Yr. Avg.\t24.37
Effective Tax Rate (TTM)\t19.16
Effecitve Tax Rate - 5 Yr. Avg.\t22.68
...
They view the hardware as a platform for their software.
This means that the two components are very tightly related.
...
Agreed wholeheardedly, Pretty simple isn't it.
Gross Margin (TTM)\t89.87
Gross Margin - 5 Yr. Avg.\t90.52
Operating Margin (TTM)\t28.72
Operating Margin - 5 Yr. Avg.\t29.02
Pre-Tax Margin (TTM)\t30.13
Pre-Tax Margin - 5 Yr. Avg.\t31.51
Net Profit Margin (TTM)\t24.35
Net Profit Margin - 5 Yr. Avg.\t24.37
Effective Tax Rate (TTM)\t19.16
Effecitve Tax Rate - 5 Yr. Avg.\t22.68
Interesting numbers, but what company is this?
It could be a local small software company with a yearly revenue of 1 dollar, of which 89.87% is kept.
This way these numbers tell nothing.
Pieter.