danox

tundraboy said:

22july2013 said:

Apple's market penetration of the PC marketplace has been stuck under 10% for over 25 years. One way Apple tried to remedy this in the 1990s was to grant licenses to other companies to build Mac clones.

WIKIPEDIA: From early 1995 through mid-1997, it was possible to buy PowerPC-based clone computers running Mac OS, most notably from Power Computing and UMAX. However, by 1996 Apple executives were worried that high-end clones were cannibalizing sales of their own high-end computers, where profit margins were highest.[18]

A total of 33 companies made Mac clones, fully licensed. Apple could take this approach again if it wants to crack the 10% market penetration of MacOS. There's no need for anyone to ridicule me for suggesting this, as I'm already sure nobody will agree with me that Apple should try this again. However what's different this time around is that many countries are hassling Apple for not allowing competition on their devices, and if Apple licensed other manufacturers to build hardware clones and/or to replace the OS on Apple's devices, that would likely reduce the cries of "monopoly."

Charges of 'monopoly' have been leveled against the iPhone not Macs.  At 10% market share, Macs are in no danger of being accused of monopolizing the personal computing market.

New EU term “Gatekeeper”, you are your own grandpa. 

genovelle said:

22july2013 said:

Apple's market penetration of the PC marketplace has been stuck under 10% for over 25 years. One way Apple tried to remedy this in the 1990s was to grant licenses to other companies to build Mac clones.

WIKIPEDIA: From early 1995 through mid-1997, it was possible to buy PowerPC-based clone computers running Mac OS, most notably from Power Computing and UMAX. However, by 1996 Apple executives were worried that high-end clones were cannibalizing sales of their own high-end computers, where profit margins were highest.[18]

A total of 33 companies made Mac clones, fully licensed. Apple could take this approach again if it wants to crack the 10% market penetration of MacOS. There's no need for anyone to ridicule me for suggesting this, as I'm already sure nobody will agree with me that Apple should try this again. However what's different this time around is that many countries are hassling Apple for not allowing competition on their devices, and if Apple licensed other manufacturers to build hardware clones and/or to replace the OS on Apple's devices, that would likely reduce the cries of "monopoly."

Market share chasing was the foolish game they were sucked into back then. It was the primary factor that nearly killed apple. It would be dumb to do that. They currently make a majority of the industry profits because they dominate the most profitable segment of the market. The market share chase devalued the Mac and siphoned sales while negatively impacting profitability. 

Jobs killed this immediately upon his return because it was counter productive. None of the PC companies that whose model they were copying at that time survived as they were. IBM exited retail and Dell’s founder found an equity group to go private because they were bleeding out and shareholders were running out of patience. 

IBM and Dell are currently tech of Christmas past, even back their heyday they were never going to move the needle for Apple. New clone makers would only under cut and cheapen the Apple brand.

mikethemartian said:

22july2013 said:

Apple's market penetration of the PC marketplace has been stuck under 10% for over 25 years. One way Apple tried to remedy this in the 1990s was to grant licenses to other companies to build Mac clones.

WIKIPEDIA: From early 1995 through mid-1997, it was possible to buy PowerPC-based clone computers running Mac OS, most notably from Power Computing and UMAX. However, by 1996 Apple executives were worried that high-end clones were cannibalizing sales of their own high-end computers, where profit margins were highest.[18]

A total of 33 companies made Mac clones, fully licensed. Apple could take this approach again if it wants to crack the 10% market penetration of MacOS. There's no need for anyone to ridicule me for suggesting this, as I'm already sure nobody will agree with me that Apple should try this again. However what's different this time around is that many countries are hassling Apple for not allowing competition on their devices, and if Apple licensed other manufacturers to build hardware clones and/or to replace the OS on Apple's devices, that would likely reduce the cries of "monopoly."

That’s sort how I felt until they released the 2019 Mac Pro. If they weren’t interested in making workstations anymore because the market was too small then just spin it off into another company like a NeXT that focused on those types of machines and license the OS to only that one company for that specific market.

Or just wait until next Apple CEO comes along, not building truck Mac computers in a timely matter won’t go well long term, and off load to a third party will not work.

22july2013 said:

Apple's market penetration of the PC marketplace has been stuck under 10% for over 25 years. One way Apple tried to remedy this in the 1990s was to grant licenses to other companies to build Mac clones.

WIKIPEDIA: From early 1995 through mid-1997, it was possible to buy PowerPC-based clone computers running Mac OS, most notably from Power Computing and UMAX. However, by 1996 Apple executives were worried that high-end clones were cannibalizing sales of their own high-end computers, where profit margins were highest.[18]

A total of 33 companies made Mac clones, fully licensed. Apple could take this approach again if it wants to crack the 10% market penetration of MacOS. There's no need for anyone to ridicule me for suggesting this, as I'm already sure nobody will agree with me that Apple should try this again. However what's different this time around is that many countries are hassling Apple for not allowing competition on their devices, and if Apple licensed other manufacturers to build hardware clones and/or to replace the OS on Apple's devices, that would likely reduce the cries of "monopoly."

Your right the idea is the extreme heights of stupid…..

Fidonet127 said:

Due to the timeline of how long Apple said they will replace Macs with ASi versions, I don’t think M1 Pro version was really designed. The mini will stay as the consumer computer, the Studio will stay as the prosumer low to medium pro computer, and the Pro will be the high end. The Studio will not cut it for someone who needs 1.5tb of memory and lots of processing power. Yes the Sudio beats some configurations of the Mac Pro. The Studio wasn’t designed in a short time. The Studio took awhile to design and announced when they were ready.  

Designing the SOC and the OS to go with it is the difficult part, see all the other companies scrambling to design and make chips as a answer to what Apple has done, it appears to be marketing decisions (what slots in here or where) getting in the way of releasing computers.

All of the Mac range of computers need to be released at the same time at each SOC M1, M2, M3 level upgrade, overlapping isn’t going to work. Apple had trouble with Intel’s schedule, it’s a shame now that Apple is in charge they are having internal marketing release trouble with themselves with their own chip.

One more thing the performance of the M2 at low wattage is utterly ridiculous when compared to the Intel and AMD chips, where are the SERVERS? What is Apple waiting for Jerry Jones? The Fourth season of Ted Lasso? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lf9sjtv3LYs Incredible!.