- Site menu:
- Latest Discussions
- Latest Newswire
- Archives
- Submit Story
- Story HOWTO
- Syndicate
- E-mail Alerts
Linux News says Mac OS X could destroy Microsoft
No one would call Steve Jobs a man of the people right now. But they could. Steve has the capacity to become a global hero. He just hasn't availed himself of the opportunity. Steve has the capacity to be loved even with his current detractors. People would forgive and forget with Steve if he made a couple of moves toward a different model of business. That's not the case with Bill Gates. Bill Gates could open source all his products, put Office into a public project and port it to Linux, adopt the GPL and people will continue to regard him with contempt. He may give all his money away before he dies and the world won't even mention him as a footnote in history. The Gates legacy lives in infamy. We know him for what he represents. In contrast, people have not finished with Mr. Jobs. He still has time to reconcile himself. It won't take much. He just has to cross a narrow threshold. How Apple Could take the Market Away from RedmondI'm a Linux advocate. I always want Linux to win. But, I refuse to lie to myself when it comes to Apple's potential with Mac OS X. OS X for Intel would change the PC landscape like no other operating system has or could. Apple should open-source their operating system, port Openoffice.org to Aqua and bundle it for Intel PC's. Offer it for $199 for a home edition and $299 for a professional edition and the world will say goodbye to Windows for good. Why? OS X is a stable and secure platform and offers the proprietary multi-media applications lacking in Linux. Reports of OS X for Intel indicate it performs well, has a great interface and provides a better overall experience than Windows. Some say the experience is vastly improved. With Microsoft Vista borrowing heavily from the OS X look and feel, why wouldn't someone want the original? Apple could do a number of things with Aqua. Keep it proprietary and sell it, if you must. Or open it up and let the open source development community give users lots of great applications. Sell Aqua for Linux and people would buy it in droves. Make a media player for it and you will sell that too. You have nothing but revenue looking you in the eyes. Apple could continue to bundle OS X with their hardware and they would increase their hardware sales. Continue to offer high-end hardware solutions and Apple won't be able to keep up with demand. People will consider the value of OS X and purchase Apple hardware justifying the premium with the $300 software savings and the value of higher end hardware. Make OEM deals that force the existing PC vendors to pay top prices for OS X. They'll pay you simply because they cannot afford to pass up the opportunity they would lose otherwise. Would I spend more money for a great Apple computer? I already have. I bought a Cube when OS X was in beta. We wanted the Studio Monitor, keyboard and mouse, sound system and the designer looks. Oh, the Cube eventually died, but we kept everything else, connected it to an Intel Pentium 4 box and run SUSE 10 on that system. Give me OS X and I'll install that without blinking. My next purchase? A PowerBook with OS X. I'd then keep this IBM Thinkpad for emergencies and if I could, I'd dual book it with OS X and Linux. What about Linux?I would still run Linux where I could. I'd probably run it on Apple hardware. That's correct, I would buy an Apple Server and run Linux on it as my web service platform. If Red Hat ported their RHEL 5 to the Apple platform, that would be my solution. And all the starving Linux developers would have a chance to make some money porting 17,000 packages to OS X, servicing them and selling them. Because, enterprises would move to Apple within a moment's notice and without hesitation. Apple's eco-system would grow and Steve would prosper like never before. In spite of Apple's proprietary stand, many Linux developers including Linus, have empathy for the Mac. Given the choice between an iBook and any Intel based Laptop, Apple usually wins. Given the opportunity to offer Apple, the channel would beg. Don't Underestimate the Affinity for AppleMac users have as much devotion to their computers as Linux users. Not much separates the two communities. You cannot say the same for Microsoft. People use Windows begrudgingly. They use Microsoft products because they have to use them. Give them an alternative and they switch. Last week's rejection of Steve Job's offer to provide China with software for the MIT Children's Notebook should have opened Steve's eyes. Even with the superior interface and the special applications, China chose to stay with Linux. It makes one wonder why Steve won't ride the horse in the direction it's going. Assume the MantleWilliam Wallace, Scotland's greatest hero, once asked Robert the Bruce to lead Scotland in its war with England. Wallace said, "if you'll just lead people will follow you. I'd even follow you." But Robert the Bruce declined. While he became king, the Bruce never achieved the stature of Wallace, who threw caution to the wind. Mr. Jobs, the whole world is watching. Indeed history is watching. Give us what we want and you will have the loyalty of a planet. Stay with your current plan and you may pick up a few points in market share and that's all. What have you got to lose? You can't take it with you , Steve. As time goes by that should become more obvious. |
LXer Day Desk: 11-20-2005
|
|
Comments (24)
Man, if only I was Steve Jobs, I'd become Mark Shuttleworth
or something like that. anyways, if i had his money i'd just call myself a lucky man [ ;-)
oh well.... lez jus say he be mucho rich.
I disagree
My only other nitpick is where Tom says: "Apple should open-source their operating system, port Openoffice.org to Aqua and bundle it for Intel PC's. Offer it for $199 for a home edition and $299 for a professional edition and the world will say goodbye to Windows for good."
Why would I pay $199/$299 for Free Software which I can get for free? Or do you mean something other than "Free Software" when you say "open-source"?
Also see this page: http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/words-to-avoid.html#Open
Most of OS X is open-source. Aqua is proprietary. I would like it if Aqua was free, open source software. But, I could live with it if not. If I could buy Cyberlink PowerDVD right now for Ubuntu, I would pay their retail price. Why? because I want the functionality.
If Apple has a problem with making their OS available for commodity based Intel, let them price and sell it in retail stores for a premium. They can build that premium into the value of their hardware. For what would you pay then? Their multi-media apps.
I watch people buy SUSE on the shelves of retails stores for $99. I see Lindows for $119 and Xandros for $159 -189. People buy it.
If I administered a large BIG DOS network and I could move it to Mac OS X. I would do that also.
I posted something similar a while ago
Not Quite...
Everything that Apple does is done to sell hardware: The iTunes Music Store exists, for example, so that people will buy iPods. (Ever wonder why the store only works with iPods?)
Sure Apple makes money from selling other stuff like OS X, but it's the high margin computers like the G5 that really bring home the butter.
That's one reason that Apple said that they "won't prevent" people from running Windows on the upcoming Intel Macs. A hardware sale is a hardware sale, regardless of how the computer is used.
Losing that money (by letting people use OS X on any hardware they want) would kill Apple.
It was tried and failed before many years ago (I wonder how many people remember?)
It failed miserably. Apple was on the brink of destruction. Steve Jobs returned. He killed everything. Apple could now never be doing better.
For Apple to survive, they need their control over both hardware and software.
Quoting:For Apple to survive, they need their control over both hardware and software.
People are inclined to believe that if they survived a threat to survival that they must continue to use the same strartegy to survive in the future. Apple had fewer products back then. They had different products back them.
The mind says that everything is the same as everything else only different. But that's not really an enlightened approach to living. Everything is not the same as everything else only different.
To live in the past is to die.
It's time to look at the current world not the model that lives in memory.
Try a different point of view.
Be willing to be willing to look at other possibilities or you'll live in an impoverish experience of life.
Would anyone care to explain to me the error of my perceptions regarding both Apple and S. Jobs?
But instead of pricing the OS at $100.00 or more, they should make it very cheap.
Just like songs for the ipod.
$19.99 for a version of the OS that will create a partition and install in dual boot mode on your current Windows/Linux box. Throw in a $20.00 coupon if you sign up at the Apple itunes store!
$19.99 a year for one click software updates from Apple, including OS upgrades. Access to online services (coordinate with Google).
99¢ per download for desktop themes including graphics, icons, and sounds. (just like ring tones)
I know most of this stuff should be free (as in beer), but I think Apple could make money doing this.
Repeat that over and over until it sinks it.
Has it sunk it yet?
No?
Apple is a hardware company. Apple makes money by selling hardware.
Repeat that over and over until it sinks it.
Mac OS X is developed so that people will buy the computers that Apple makes. They're not going to offer OS X as a standalone product.
You just have to redefine hardware to include things like music and software.
Granted they do make money from selling software but that is a small small portion compared to what they make from hardware sales. As I said before it's their high margin computers that really bring home the bacon. They are a hardware company.
They bought another company for multiple millions of dollars and used it to create iDVD, for example, and then gave it away for free. Why? Because they wanted to sell more high end computers with built-in SuperDrives. (iLife is a separate package now, I know, but that's not the point of my message.)
The software that Apple creates is done for the exclusive purpose to move more hardware.
Apple does not make any money at all from the iTunes Music Store (they've publically stated that they actually slightly loose money on it after you take out operational costs and royalties paid to the labels.) iTunes was created to sell more iPods.
Apple created Mac OS X (after buying yet another company -- NeXT -- in the process to get their technology). Why? To modernize the Mac OS, make it more appealing to people, and then sell more hardware.
OS X is bundled for free with every single Macintosh. The money made from selling OS X on it's own as an upgrade hardly pays for all of the money Apple is pouring into R&D. They are a hardware company.
Forget the notion that Apple’s next great success could be in making a version of Mac OS X that would run on any Intel PC. This would succeed only in rapidly eliminating about 75 percent of Apple.
Apple Computer is a hardware company. Repeat that until it sinks in. Apple makes operating systems to sell its hardware, and it always has. In the last completed quarter, Apple booked 75 percent of its revenue from selling computers. Non-computer hardware, from displays to iPods, brought in another 15 percent. Every piece of software Apple sells, from iLife to Mac OS X Server, brought the company a combined $160 million.
People who say that Apple could increase market share with an generic PC-compatible operating system are talking about operating-system market share. But Apple is not an operating-system company, and such a change would instantly obliterate the value of Apple’s hardware, because you could get the power and glory of OS X on a cheap beige-box PC.
"But Apple will sell so many copies of a PC-compatible OS that it won’t matter," say the folks who want Safari on their PCs. That’s bilge. Apple's gross margins are among the highest in the industry. On average, the company earns about a $350 profit per computer, more if AppleCare or an Apple display is sold with it. The amount Apple would make selling a boxed copy of OS X for Intel—say, $100—simply wouldn't measure up.
And in this scenario, the more copies of an Intel-compatible OS X Apple sold, the fewer people would need to buy Apple hardware, and the less money Apple would make. If Apple's hardware sales fell by half, the company would have to sell more than a million copies of a PC-based Mac OS every quarter just to tread water. Any less, and the company would shrink—and Wall Street pretty much wants technology companies to grow.
Pretty soon, a huge percentage of Apple's revenue would just be gone. The retail stores, the stores within stores, and the shelf space would all vanish without hardware sales to justify their existence. Apple could stay in the game only by increasing its operating-system share many times over, by perhaps as much as 20 or 30 percent. That sounds really good, but there’s just no evidence it would happen. Visions of "Mac OS X for generic Intel PCs" making major inroads against Windows simply because it’s a better operating system are fantasies. The Mac has always been better than Windows. But which platform has the dominant market share?
Quoting:Visions of "Mac OS X for generic Intel PCs" making major inroads against Windows simply because it’s a better operating system are fantasies. The Mac has always been better than Windows. But which platform has the dominant market share?
The only reason I filled my shop up with PCs after we started doing desktop publishing was because I could get the same programs, put them on a PC and save money.
Would I have rather had a shop full of Macs? You bet.
You lost the market because of price.
That's not the case any more.
I don't see it as a fantasy. You could float the Intel OS X before Vista comes out, see what happens and then go back to a proprietary model on the next release if it doesn't work.
I think everyone keeps forgetting that Apple has tried this before. "Been There, Done That" might be a better title for the thread.
Just as jimf says: "Last time they departed from the model, it was disastrous, so don't expect them to go that route again."
It's not happening. There will not be an OS X for generic Intel PCs. Ever. Re-read my post if the reason behind "why not?" doesn't make sense. Apple tried before.
Sure they sell some software, but most of their revenue/profit comes from hardware.
Just like Microsoft sells some hardware, but most of their revenue/profit comes from software.
Apple is primarily a hardware company, just like Dell. Always have been.
Expecting a hardware company (Apple) to adopt the business model and priorities of a software company (Microsoft) is absurd.
Instead, you should compare Apple to another PC hardware companies, like Dell/HP/Acer/Gateway.
I think you are a little off the mark with the Dell/HP/Acer/Gateway examples. Apple is about the package, complete combo of hardware 'and' exclusive software, with good customer support. It would never work without that complete package. On the other hand, Dell/HP/Acer/Gateway may indeed try to emulate Apple's example, but in the end they are pretty much hardware, because they lack any exclusive OS interface.
Hopefully, I'll be able to get the parts and build my own computers that will use OS X. But, I doubt I'll ever buy a new one again, unless it's a mini for my wife.
Post a comment
A free account is needed to post. Write your comment here first: your text is kept in this browser while you sign up or log in, and is waiting for you when you come back.
Your message:Sign up and post (it is free) or Log in and post
I tell you, if i had Steve's money, connections, etc, I'd open-source it all and become another Mark Shuttleworth who, unless he drastically changes his strategy, will go down in my books as another God-guru... someone who uses their money for good..........................
..........................listen up Bill Gates.... 'giving' used computers to poor schools as charity is charity. Stipulating that they can only use licensed Microsoft software on them NEGATES it being charity and NEGATES you as being a Philanthropist-- it makes you a Corporate schill (well duh, right. what else could he be but a very rich Loser with a big forehead 'L'.) (If i give you five dollars but tell you you have to use it to buy coffee and sandwich at my coffee shop instead of somewhere cheaper, is it charity? I think not.)
But Mark Shuttleworth (billionaire) is giving back with real charity.... ..... hey, here is free software you can use anyway you want and i'll even ship you the cd's free! My god, now that is charity.
I thank Mr. Shuttleworth for his charity, he has helped me because all I can afford in my area is dialup (can't get the money for a satellite connection, darn it).
I hold my praise for Mr. Jobs for the future.
I withdraw any praise I might have had (cough-cough, yeah right) for Mr. Gates.
Mr. Jobs... you are using freely available software as your base....as Mr. Shuttleworth is doing, it is time to give back.
And we won't even go into the free/libre etc software that Mr. Gates is using, especially to hide his own servers.
cough.