That's only reasonable if those clone makers could procude machines that were even cheaper than the cheapest PCs, because if a normal user has the choice between a 500$ PC and a 500$ Mac, one having 95% marketshare and the other barely 5%, they'll choose the PC.
And there is no way on earth how a small cloning company could possibly make a computer that is cheaper than a PC, yet return a minimum of revenue.
Clones are dead, and as far as I'm concerned, that's a good thing.
One of the main problems for the mac platform is the lack of inexpensive towers.
If you already have a decent monitor and want a new mac, you're ****ed. You either have to buy an all-in-one solution, which is too expensive and might not be what you want in the first place. Or you buy a tower, which is awfully expensive. That's why I own a PC as second computer, which I use for stuff that needs (1) a lot of cpu power (3D stuff) and (2) for things that don't work / don't work well with the Mac (DivX, gaming, home banking).
Cheap clones would solve both problems :
(1) I would be able to afford a new, up-to-date mac more often and there would probably be faster processors for the mac (plus stuff like DDR etc).
(2) There would be more games, DivX would work, home banking too and we would have better browsers (all of that as a result of higher market share).
In that ideal world, I wouldn't need a PC. Right now that's nort an option. And I think that this is what keeps a lot of people away from the mac platform.
That's a funny term -- IBM wanted anything but clones. They fought against it, but couldn't stop it because their machine was entirely off the shelf parts (except for a small and simple BIOS), and their only software was actually owned by Microsoft who will sell anything to anybody as long as they get to own their soul in exchange.
The cloning of the Mac is just a bad idea. Apple has always had its advantage because it controls both the hardware and the software, and it can leverage the benefits of that integration. Since Mr. Jobs has returned they also have been leveraging "style" in both hardware and software. That level of industrial design is expensive, and while it can command slightly high margins it couldn't do that in the face of competition from clone makers. This would force their margins lower, meaning less money was left to improve the platform and differentiate it from the PC. Cloning the Mac would make the Mac market the same as the PC, except 10x smaller -- which would lead to its death because it would be the same.
Apple wanted the clones to grow the Mac market into segments where they couldn't. Unfortunately they didn't (for the most part) because it was easier and cheaper to build generic machines that didn't have anything new or innovative in them. This meant nobody mad much money per machine, and it did nothing to bring new people into the Mac market. Moto wasn't making money from it because their margins per machine were so low, and they weren't selling more PowerPC chips because the clone sales were to former Apple customers, not to new Mac people. It is the optimists who think that the clone makers would work to expand the market, but it is the realists who realize that it is the clone makers who would go for the easy targets, the low-hanging fruit -- people already sold on the Mac who are looking to save money. All the clones did was reduce the amount of money coming into the Mac market, and divide it among half a dozen companies rather than just one.
And as for Apple becoming a software company... in '87 that might have been feasible (although not necessarily advisable) because Apple's software was clearly way ahead of the competition from a user's point of view. Now the differentiation is much thinner, and you actually have to use the software for a while to really appreciate the difference. Standing in a store the uneducated consumer can't really tell the difference between WindowsXP and MacOS X. Even the somewhat educated consumer really only knows what they've used. Apple is selling machines to new customers based on lifestyle -- what the machine looks like, and what it can do out-of-the-box. Old customers are pretty much already committed to one platform or another, so its a different battle. If Apple was a software only company then the hardware would not be differentiated from the PC because clone makers would build it... and they would aim at the easy target: people who want to save money. Who wants to save money? Pretty much everybody. So the sales would go to the platform that had the biggest differentiations: number of software titles and the best features per buck. Here the larger market clearly wins.
Apple stays in business by selling a package. Its a package that appeals to the buyer at several levels, and justifies the extra money. Cloning the Mac would rip the package into parts, and throw away pretty much the only thing keeping Apple in business.
A couple of other random comments to things written above...
- Motorola did not cripple the G4 because the clones were killed. That's like shooting yourself in the foot to spite your horse. Dumb. Moto would like to build the best G4 they can, but ran into troubles (which are hopefully resolved now). If Moto wanted to get back at Apple they would build the best G4 they could and raise its price just high enough that it wouldn't impact sales. In other words they wouldn't do anything different.
- Intel builds great hardware, but they are constrained heavily by the clone maker nature of the their market. Everything is based on "standards" which they come up with but everybody has to sign up to. Intel builds most (many?) of the chipsets and motherboards used by the clone makers, and has done so for many years now. The clone makers just buy their motherboards from Intel, VIA, etc. Intel doesn't build the boxes, however, so you don't see industrial design from them like you see from Apple. And the clone makers are so busy undercutting eachother that they can't afford to do anything except try cheap knock-offs of Apple's designs. Nonetheless, over time we will see motherboards from Intel (and competition) that will enable smaller / better designs than have traditionally been possible.
- My comments above didn't speak to the need for Apple to stay on the performance / features curve in order to continue appealing to their existing users and be competitive on a price / performance level. They do need to do this as well, selling on style can justify some higher margin and some lower performance... but its not a free ticket.
Apple's strenght may be software to you, but in fact their software is only better than others, because they also have the machines to run it on.
It's like in the console market where you have a closed system that behaves the same in every case, and you can tickle way more out of the software than on an open platform. Now the Mac isn't closed, but it's tight, and that is an advantage that Apple has. Without that they'd have to fight similar problems as MS and co. There's a point to haveing control over hardware and software, as it enables you to deliver new hardware along with new software and vice versa, stuff that works together.
Had the clones stayed, CHRP, PPCP or whatever you call it emerged (beyond the current situation) and Apple dumped out of the hardware business, Apple would most likely be dead now, and maybe BeOS would rule the PPC market (they had a wonderful OS on that platform, and where way ahead of Mac OS X (time whise).
Steve had his reasons to kill the clones, had he seen benefits for the platform as a whole, they'd live, that's for sure.
G-news</strong><hr></blockquote>
I agree at 100 % with your analysis : the strenght of Apple is to do both hardware and software.
That's a funny term -- IBM wanted anything but clones. They fought against it, but couldn't stop it because their machine was entirely off the shelf parts (except for a small and simple BIOS), and their only software was actually owned by Microsoft who will sell anything to anybody as long as they get to own their soul in exchange.
The cloning of the Mac is just a bad idea. Apple has always had its advantage because it controls both the hardware and the software, and it can leverage the benefits of that integration. Since Mr. Jobs has returned they also have been leveraging "style" in both hardware and software. That level of industrial design is expensive, and while it can command slightly high margins it couldn't do that in the face of competition from clone makers. This would force their margins lower, meaning less money was left to improve the platform and differentiate it from the PC. Cloning the Mac would make the Mac market the same as the PC, except 10x smaller -- which would lead to its death because it would be the same.
Apple wanted the clones to grow the Mac market into segments where they couldn't. Unfortunately they didn't (for the most part) because it was easier and cheaper to build generic machines that didn't have anything new or innovative in them. This meant nobody mad much money per machine, and it did nothing to bring new people into the Mac market. Moto wasn't making money from it because their margins per machine were so low, and they weren't selling more PowerPC chips because the clone sales were to former Apple customers, not to new Mac people. It is the optimists who think that the clone makers would work to expand the market, but it is the realists who realize that it is the clone makers who would go for the easy targets, the low-hanging fruit -- people already sold on the Mac who are looking to save money. All the clones did was reduce the amount of money coming into the Mac market, and divide it among half a dozen companies rather than just one.
And as for Apple becoming a software company... in '87 that might have been feasible (although not necessarily advisable) because Apple's software was clearly way ahead of the competition from a user's point of view. Now the differentiation is much thinner, and you actually have to use the software for a while to really appreciate the difference. Standing in a store the uneducated consumer can't really tell the difference between WindowsXP and MacOS X. Even the somewhat educated consumer really only knows what they've used. Apple is selling machines to new customers based on lifestyle -- what the machine looks like, and what it can do out-of-the-box. Old customers are pretty much already committed to one platform or another, so its a different battle. If Apple was a software only company then the hardware would not be differentiated from the PC because clone makers would build it... and they would aim at the easy target: people who want to save money. Who wants to save money? Pretty much everybody. So the sales would go to the platform that had the biggest differentiations: number of software titles and the best features per buck. Here the larger market clearly wins.
Apple stays in business by selling a package. Its a package that appeals to the buyer at several levels, and justifies the extra money. Cloning the Mac would rip the package into parts, and throw away pretty much the only thing keeping Apple in business.
A couple of other random comments to things written above...
- Motorola did not cripple the G4 because the clones were killed. That's like shooting yourself in the foot to spite your horse. Dumb. Moto would like to build the best G4 they can, but ran into troubles (which are hopefully resolved now). If Moto wanted to get back at Apple they would build the best G4 they could and raise its price just high enough that it wouldn't impact sales. In other words they wouldn't do anything different.
- Intel builds great hardware, but they are constrained heavily by the clone maker nature of the their market. Everything is based on "standards" which they come up with but everybody has to sign up to. Intel builds most (many?) of the chipsets and motherboards used by the clone makers, and has done so for many years now. The clone makers just buy their motherboards from Intel, VIA, etc. Intel doesn't build the boxes, however, so you don't see industrial design from them like you see from Apple. And the clone makers are so busy undercutting eachother that they can't afford to do anything except try cheap knock-offs of Apple's designs. Nonetheless, over time we will see motherboards from Intel (and competition) that will enable smaller / better designs than have traditionally been possible.
- My comments above didn't speak to the need for Apple to stay on the performance / features curve in order to continue appealing to their existing users and be competitive on a price / performance level. They do need to do this as well, selling on style can justify some higher margin and some lower performance... but its not a free ticket.</strong><hr></blockquote>
I agree with you too The Programmer, it's not a surprise i agree with almost all of your posts .
<strong>That's a funny term -- IBM wanted anything but clones. They fought against it, but couldn't stop it because their machine was entirely off the shelf parts (except for a small and simple BIOS), and their only software was actually owned by Microsoft who will sell anything to anybody as long as they get to own their soul in exchange.</strong><hr></blockquote>
I actually thought briefly of including something like that. but then thought: "Nah! I needn't bother. it would take too long. and it's probably a bit off my topic anyways.".
<strong>When the clones first came out, I had high hopes for them. We bought about 40 PowerComputing clones. Today, we have none of those out on the floor. They weren't very durable and the ones that were had odd behaviour at times with 3rd party hardware. I'm glad the clones are gone. Apple never had worse times like when the clones were around.</strong><hr></blockquote>
i agree. i had a macworks millenium which was the daystar tower and it never really worked right (bought it because it was the fastest mac based computer at the time). and when it was screwed up, you couldn't boot off the cd drive very easily because it wasn't an apple cd drive. the clones were interesting in theory, but i'm much happier buying my machines from apple now.
Comments
And there is no way on earth how a small cloning company could possibly make a computer that is cheaper than a PC, yet return a minimum of revenue.
Clones are dead, and as far as I'm concerned, that's a good thing.
G-News
One of the main problems for the mac platform is the lack of inexpensive towers.
If you already have a decent monitor and want a new mac, you're ****ed. You either have to buy an all-in-one solution, which is too expensive and might not be what you want in the first place. Or you buy a tower, which is awfully expensive. That's why I own a PC as second computer, which I use for stuff that needs (1) a lot of cpu power (3D stuff) and (2) for things that don't work / don't work well with the Mac (DivX, gaming, home banking).
Cheap clones would solve both problems :
(1) I would be able to afford a new, up-to-date mac more often and there would probably be faster processors for the mac (plus stuff like DDR etc).
(2) There would be more games, DivX would work, home banking too and we would have better browsers (all of that as a result of higher market share).
In that ideal world, I wouldn't need a PC. Right now that's nort an option. And I think that this is what keeps a lot of people away from the mac platform.
[ 03-06-2002: Message edited by: amyklai ]</p>
<strong>IBM style cloning.</strong><hr></blockquote>
That's a funny term -- IBM wanted anything but clones. They fought against it, but couldn't stop it because their machine was entirely off the shelf parts (except for a small and simple BIOS), and their only software was actually owned by Microsoft who will sell anything to anybody as long as they get to own their soul in exchange.
The cloning of the Mac is just a bad idea. Apple has always had its advantage because it controls both the hardware and the software, and it can leverage the benefits of that integration. Since Mr. Jobs has returned they also have been leveraging "style" in both hardware and software. That level of industrial design is expensive, and while it can command slightly high margins it couldn't do that in the face of competition from clone makers. This would force their margins lower, meaning less money was left to improve the platform and differentiate it from the PC. Cloning the Mac would make the Mac market the same as the PC, except 10x smaller -- which would lead to its death because it would be the same.
Apple wanted the clones to grow the Mac market into segments where they couldn't. Unfortunately they didn't (for the most part) because it was easier and cheaper to build generic machines that didn't have anything new or innovative in them. This meant nobody mad much money per machine, and it did nothing to bring new people into the Mac market. Moto wasn't making money from it because their margins per machine were so low, and they weren't selling more PowerPC chips because the clone sales were to former Apple customers, not to new Mac people. It is the optimists who think that the clone makers would work to expand the market, but it is the realists who realize that it is the clone makers who would go for the easy targets, the low-hanging fruit -- people already sold on the Mac who are looking to save money. All the clones did was reduce the amount of money coming into the Mac market, and divide it among half a dozen companies rather than just one.
And as for Apple becoming a software company... in '87 that might have been feasible (although not necessarily advisable) because Apple's software was clearly way ahead of the competition from a user's point of view. Now the differentiation is much thinner, and you actually have to use the software for a while to really appreciate the difference. Standing in a store the uneducated consumer can't really tell the difference between WindowsXP and MacOS X. Even the somewhat educated consumer really only knows what they've used. Apple is selling machines to new customers based on lifestyle -- what the machine looks like, and what it can do out-of-the-box. Old customers are pretty much already committed to one platform or another, so its a different battle. If Apple was a software only company then the hardware would not be differentiated from the PC because clone makers would build it... and they would aim at the easy target: people who want to save money. Who wants to save money? Pretty much everybody. So the sales would go to the platform that had the biggest differentiations: number of software titles and the best features per buck. Here the larger market clearly wins.
Apple stays in business by selling a package. Its a package that appeals to the buyer at several levels, and justifies the extra money. Cloning the Mac would rip the package into parts, and throw away pretty much the only thing keeping Apple in business.
A couple of other random comments to things written above...
- Motorola did not cripple the G4 because the clones were killed. That's like shooting yourself in the foot to spite your horse. Dumb. Moto would like to build the best G4 they can, but ran into troubles (which are hopefully resolved now). If Moto wanted to get back at Apple they would build the best G4 they could and raise its price just high enough that it wouldn't impact sales. In other words they wouldn't do anything different.
- Intel builds great hardware, but they are constrained heavily by the clone maker nature of the their market. Everything is based on "standards" which they come up with but everybody has to sign up to. Intel builds most (many?) of the chipsets and motherboards used by the clone makers, and has done so for many years now. The clone makers just buy their motherboards from Intel, VIA, etc. Intel doesn't build the boxes, however, so you don't see industrial design from them like you see from Apple. And the clone makers are so busy undercutting eachother that they can't afford to do anything except try cheap knock-offs of Apple's designs. Nonetheless, over time we will see motherboards from Intel (and competition) that will enable smaller / better designs than have traditionally been possible.
- My comments above didn't speak to the need for Apple to stay on the performance / features curve in order to continue appealing to their existing users and be competitive on a price / performance level. They do need to do this as well, selling on style can justify some higher margin and some lower performance... but its not a free ticket.
<strong>You're all losing the big picture:
Apple's strenght may be software to you, but in fact their software is only better than others, because they also have the machines to run it on.
It's like in the console market where you have a closed system that behaves the same in every case, and you can tickle way more out of the software than on an open platform. Now the Mac isn't closed, but it's tight, and that is an advantage that Apple has. Without that they'd have to fight similar problems as MS and co. There's a point to haveing control over hardware and software, as it enables you to deliver new hardware along with new software and vice versa, stuff that works together.
Had the clones stayed, CHRP, PPCP or whatever you call it emerged (beyond the current situation) and Apple dumped out of the hardware business, Apple would most likely be dead now, and maybe BeOS would rule the PPC market (they had a wonderful OS on that platform, and where way ahead of Mac OS X (time whise).
Steve had his reasons to kill the clones, had he seen benefits for the platform as a whole, they'd live, that's for sure.
G-news</strong><hr></blockquote>
I agree at 100 % with your analysis : the strenght of Apple is to do both hardware and software.
<strong>
That's a funny term -- IBM wanted anything but clones. They fought against it, but couldn't stop it because their machine was entirely off the shelf parts (except for a small and simple BIOS), and their only software was actually owned by Microsoft who will sell anything to anybody as long as they get to own their soul in exchange.
The cloning of the Mac is just a bad idea. Apple has always had its advantage because it controls both the hardware and the software, and it can leverage the benefits of that integration. Since Mr. Jobs has returned they also have been leveraging "style" in both hardware and software. That level of industrial design is expensive, and while it can command slightly high margins it couldn't do that in the face of competition from clone makers. This would force their margins lower, meaning less money was left to improve the platform and differentiate it from the PC. Cloning the Mac would make the Mac market the same as the PC, except 10x smaller -- which would lead to its death because it would be the same.
Apple wanted the clones to grow the Mac market into segments where they couldn't. Unfortunately they didn't (for the most part) because it was easier and cheaper to build generic machines that didn't have anything new or innovative in them. This meant nobody mad much money per machine, and it did nothing to bring new people into the Mac market. Moto wasn't making money from it because their margins per machine were so low, and they weren't selling more PowerPC chips because the clone sales were to former Apple customers, not to new Mac people. It is the optimists who think that the clone makers would work to expand the market, but it is the realists who realize that it is the clone makers who would go for the easy targets, the low-hanging fruit -- people already sold on the Mac who are looking to save money. All the clones did was reduce the amount of money coming into the Mac market, and divide it among half a dozen companies rather than just one.
And as for Apple becoming a software company... in '87 that might have been feasible (although not necessarily advisable) because Apple's software was clearly way ahead of the competition from a user's point of view. Now the differentiation is much thinner, and you actually have to use the software for a while to really appreciate the difference. Standing in a store the uneducated consumer can't really tell the difference between WindowsXP and MacOS X. Even the somewhat educated consumer really only knows what they've used. Apple is selling machines to new customers based on lifestyle -- what the machine looks like, and what it can do out-of-the-box. Old customers are pretty much already committed to one platform or another, so its a different battle. If Apple was a software only company then the hardware would not be differentiated from the PC because clone makers would build it... and they would aim at the easy target: people who want to save money. Who wants to save money? Pretty much everybody. So the sales would go to the platform that had the biggest differentiations: number of software titles and the best features per buck. Here the larger market clearly wins.
Apple stays in business by selling a package. Its a package that appeals to the buyer at several levels, and justifies the extra money. Cloning the Mac would rip the package into parts, and throw away pretty much the only thing keeping Apple in business.
A couple of other random comments to things written above...
- Motorola did not cripple the G4 because the clones were killed. That's like shooting yourself in the foot to spite your horse. Dumb. Moto would like to build the best G4 they can, but ran into troubles (which are hopefully resolved now). If Moto wanted to get back at Apple they would build the best G4 they could and raise its price just high enough that it wouldn't impact sales. In other words they wouldn't do anything different.
- Intel builds great hardware, but they are constrained heavily by the clone maker nature of the their market. Everything is based on "standards" which they come up with but everybody has to sign up to. Intel builds most (many?) of the chipsets and motherboards used by the clone makers, and has done so for many years now. The clone makers just buy their motherboards from Intel, VIA, etc. Intel doesn't build the boxes, however, so you don't see industrial design from them like you see from Apple. And the clone makers are so busy undercutting eachother that they can't afford to do anything except try cheap knock-offs of Apple's designs. Nonetheless, over time we will see motherboards from Intel (and competition) that will enable smaller / better designs than have traditionally been possible.
- My comments above didn't speak to the need for Apple to stay on the performance / features curve in order to continue appealing to their existing users and be competitive on a price / performance level. They do need to do this as well, selling on style can justify some higher margin and some lower performance... but its not a free ticket.</strong><hr></blockquote>
I agree with you too The Programmer, it's not a surprise i agree with almost all of your posts .
:cool:
<strong>That's a funny term -- IBM wanted anything but clones. They fought against it, but couldn't stop it because their machine was entirely off the shelf parts (except for a small and simple BIOS), and their only software was actually owned by Microsoft who will sell anything to anybody as long as they get to own their soul in exchange.</strong><hr></blockquote>
I actually thought briefly of including something like that. but then thought: "Nah! I needn't bother. it would take too long. and it's probably a bit off my topic anyways.".
_Excellent_ post though.
Eric,
<strong>When the clones first came out, I had high hopes for them. We bought about 40 PowerComputing clones. Today, we have none of those out on the floor. They weren't very durable and the ones that were had odd behaviour at times with 3rd party hardware. I'm glad the clones are gone. Apple never had worse times like when the clones were around.</strong><hr></blockquote>
i agree. i had a macworks millenium which was the daystar tower and it never really worked right (bought it because it was the fastest mac based computer at the time). and when it was screwed up, you couldn't boot off the cd drive very easily because it wasn't an apple cd drive. the clones were interesting in theory, but i'm much happier buying my machines from apple now.
[ 03-06-2002: Message edited by: admactanium ]</p>