Not Quite...
|
| Author | Content |
|---|---|
| jxself Nov 21, 2005 2:50 PM EDT |
It's a nice idea, in theory... but Apple is a hardware company, plain and simple. It's a different dynamic than Microsoft (which is a software company.) 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. |
| tadelste Nov 21, 2005 8:46 PM EDT |
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. |
| TxtEdMacs Nov 22, 2005 4:36 AM EDT |
Indirect indications are not yet aligned with the possibility that Apple might be leaning towards more openness. How long ago was it that threatened legal action against a Mac fan sight that had the temerity to guess what might be the next big announcement that Jobs might make in his inimitable, extravagant style? Those leaks seemed to be fairly accurate indicating some insider knowledge, hence, Apple demanded access to the site logs to identify and punish the perpetrator. Somehow, that strikes me as a predisposition towards secrecy and control, thus, a very closed environment. Would anyone care to explain to me the error of my perceptions regarding both Apple and S. Jobs? |
| tadelste Nov 22, 2005 5:39 AM EDT |
No error. Just hope and a prayer. And perhaps the thought he's looking at mortality. |
| number6x Nov 22, 2005 7:09 AM EDT |
If Apple looks at its recent winner in the market place, ipod, they should sell a stand alone version of their OS for people who already own Intel based pc's 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. |
| jxself Nov 22, 2005 10:45 AM EDT |
Apple is a hardware company. Apple makes money by selling hardware. 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. |
| number6x Nov 22, 2005 10:55 AM EDT |
Apple is a hardware company. You just have to redefine hardware to include things like music and software. |
| jxself Nov 22, 2005 1:52 PM EDT |
Apple creates software to sell more hardware. 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? |
| tadelste Nov 22, 2005 5:51 PM EDT |
Steve: Only you know your operation. It's too bad that you can't have it all. It's also okay with me that you execute your strategy the way you want. 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. |
| jimf Nov 22, 2005 7:01 PM EDT |
Apple's control over hardware and software will 'never' give them the top market position. It will however 'always' put them in an untouchable and very profitable market position as long as they keep putting out a quality product. That is no secret to Apple. Last time they departed from the model, it was disastrous, so don't expect them to go that route again. |
| jxself Nov 22, 2005 9:44 PM EDT |
"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. |
| jimf Nov 23, 2005 9:01 AM EDT |
jxself, 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. |
| tadelste Nov 23, 2005 9:07 AM EDT |
I give up. 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. |
Posting in this forum is limited to members of the group: [ForumMods, SITEADMINS, MEMBERS.]
Becoming a member of LXer is easy and free. Join Us!