- Site menu:
- Latest Discussions
- Latest Newswire
- Archives
- Submit Story
- Story HOWTO
- Syndicate
- E-mail Alerts
While Microsoft chases Yahoo, here's how Apple can win
|
|
|
Comments (40)
Elite Hardware
OS X runs on "elite" hardware, more correctly known as "hardware Apple controls completely". If it starts to run on whatever, OS X will no longer "just work" but will instead cause users to suffer from all of the headaches Linux, Windows and *BSD users suffer from now due to hardware compatibility issues. I don't think they'll ever do it.
If Apple got serious about this -- and I really don't think they will -- they could support certain hardware, list what it is, and let everybody else either conform or lump it. Hey ... that's what they do now, only they're the only one that sells it.
My point in the editorial is that they're making great margins on computer workstation hardware, but by virtue of that hardware being so damn expensive, it's all at the high end. If they could get a low-end solution -- not a Mac Mini, but something more akin to a $500 box PC -- the OS itself could gain a lot more traction.
I didn't really spell it out (though I have before) there a whole lot of collusion between Microsoft and Apple. It's never quite said out in the open, but these two companies are very friendly: Apple agrees, if tacitly, not to compete for the OS market on non-Apple hardware, and Microsoft agrees to continue porting Office to OS X. It's not a perfect relationship, but with MS so inept when it comes to producing actual non-software products (Zune), there's a whole lot of back-scratching going on.
Not that another company couldn't produce and sell a commercial OS (even emanating from FOSS, as Red Hat, Linspire, Xandros and others are doing) and really compete with Microsoft, but Apple is the company best positioned to do so.
But ... I guess they know what they're doing (even though I may not like it ).
My point in the editorial is that they're making great margins on computer workstation hardware, but by virtue of that hardware being so damn expensive, it's all at the high end. If they could get a low-end solution -- not a Mac Mini, but something more akin to a $500 box PC -- the OS itself could gain a lot more traction.
I didn't really spell it out (though I have before) there a whole lot of collusion between Microsoft and Apple. It's never quite said out in the open, but these two companies are very friendly: Apple agrees, if tacitly, not to compete for the OS market on non-Apple hardware, and Microsoft agrees to continue porting Office to OS X. It's not a perfect relationship, but with MS so inept when it comes to producing actual non-software products (Zune), there's a whole lot of back-scratching going on.
Not that another company couldn't produce and sell a commercial OS (even emanating from FOSS, as Red Hat, Linspire, Xandros and others are doing) and really compete with Microsoft, but Apple is the company best positioned to do so.
But ... I guess they know what they're doing (even though I may not like it ).
I think Sun will start selling to consumers more if they can get Solaris a little more snappy and user friendly, Indiana is a step in the right direction and progressing.
I think Red Hat will soon start selling through Dell, with their Global Desktop, but that's a total hunch (well, I guess they're both hunches).
I think Red Hat will soon start selling through Dell, with their Global Desktop, but that's a total hunch (well, I guess they're both hunches).
I expect good things from Red Hat Global Desktop, if it ever comes out.
Quoting: if it ever comes out
Yeah, at this point RHEL 6 will be out first!
> but with MS so inept when it comes to producing actual non-software products...
Microsoft's mice and keyboards have usually been good. though not great, products.
Microsoft's mice and keyboards have usually been good. though not great, products.
> Microsoft's mice and keyboards have usually been good. though not great, products.
Indeed true. I've heard from someone I know that they are very happy with their "ergonomic" Microsoft keyboard.
I believe they are made _for_, rather than _by_, Microsoft.
Indeed true. I've heard from someone I know that they are very happy with their "ergonomic" Microsoft keyboard.
I believe they are made _for_, rather than _by_, Microsoft.
Quoting:I believe they are made _for_, rather than _by_, Microsoft.
Now that would be quite interesting to find out. What Microsoft Hardware products are actually developed/produced by them and which ones are actually made by someone else and just sold under the MS label?
I cannot type on anything but a Microsoft Ergonomic 4000. It's the only thing with a Microsoft name on it that I have paid money for in well over a decade, and I make all my employers buy me one. I'm not saying it's the best built keyboard out there by any means, but it has been durable and very comfortable for me. I also have a few MS optical mice that I inherited one way or another that work well for my hands. My paws are much larger than average.
I have no idea who builds these for them, but I consider them very good products despite the logo.
I have no idea who builds these for them, but I consider them very good products despite the logo.
Quoting:but with MS so inept when it comes to producing actual non-software products...
What about xbox?
And shouldn't it be: "but with MS so inept when it comes to producing actual software products..." ? ;)
Approximate costs of competitors
10 earlier comments in the full thread.
>> The shiny new Macs at Starbucks that tuxtom mentioned are the perfect example of where Linux can be if we can figure out how to implement the lessons learned from Apple, or even Microsoft.
Linux, Inc.?
No thanks. Unless it is an organic social phenomenon I really want no part of "world domination". If it happens you can trust that I'll be using the next-generation underground OS.
Linux, Inc.?
No thanks. Unless it is an organic social phenomenon I really want no part of "world domination". If it happens you can trust that I'll be using the next-generation underground OS.
tuxtom -
Thinking too narrowly.
Apple is an inc, their model is not.
Their model is to be a design leader -- to create premium products that innovate, stimulate, and seduce. That model has survived from the original too-little memory 1-piece monochrome M68000 Macs through the PowerPC models and on to the Intel versions. It has survived from the classic Mac OS to the current BSD-based OS.
It has translated to iPods and to the iPhone.
There's a big lesson in there --- technology is cool, especially when it's shiny, but, mostly, people care that it works, they can use it, and they can show it off to their friends. Nits and grits are for nerds.
Linuxland is still WAY too developer-oriented. Great if you want to reach developers. Not so great if you want to reach everyone else. Much better than it was ten years ago, but...
Thinking too narrowly.
Apple is an inc, their model is not.
Their model is to be a design leader -- to create premium products that innovate, stimulate, and seduce. That model has survived from the original too-little memory 1-piece monochrome M68000 Macs through the PowerPC models and on to the Intel versions. It has survived from the classic Mac OS to the current BSD-based OS.
It has translated to iPods and to the iPhone.
There's a big lesson in there --- technology is cool, especially when it's shiny, but, mostly, people care that it works, they can use it, and they can show it off to their friends. Nits and grits are for nerds.
Linuxland is still WAY too developer-oriented. Great if you want to reach developers. Not so great if you want to reach everyone else. Much better than it was ten years ago, but...
> ...technology is cool...
In that regard, the Eee PC shows the way. The main thing people are saying about it is that it's cool.
I personally thought the Nokia 770 fit that bill too, but apparently most people didn't. But then again, it wasn't as widely available as the Eee.
In that regard, the Eee PC shows the way. The main thing people are saying about it is that it's cool.
I personally thought the Nokia 770 fit that bill too, but apparently most people didn't. But then again, it wasn't as widely available as the Eee.
If the category opened up by the ASUS Eee begins to grow, that will be a Linux niche that reaches firmly into the casual user community that has never used FOSS before. If these manufacturers can somehow get the point across that YOU CAN DO EVERYTHING WITH LINUX THAT YOU CAN DO WITH WINDOWS AND MS OFFICE, EXCEPT YOU DON'T PAY -- EVER ... well, then we'll be getting somewhere.
But I suspect that if the makers of $300 laptops (assuming they get that cheap) begin to take off, Microsoft will somehow, someway retool XP for the low-end laptop segment and slash their prices to grab that market. You can run XP in 512 MB of RAM ... I, unfortunately, have to do it every day.
I guess what I'm saying is that time is of the essence. And at this point I do see Ubuntu leading the way (never mind that it's Xandros in the Eee and Ubuntu-derived gOS in the Everex Cloudbook).
But I suspect that if the makers of $300 laptops (assuming they get that cheap) begin to take off, Microsoft will somehow, someway retool XP for the low-end laptop segment and slash their prices to grab that market. You can run XP in 512 MB of RAM ... I, unfortunately, have to do it every day.
I guess what I'm saying is that time is of the essence. And at this point I do see Ubuntu leading the way (never mind that it's Xandros in the Eee and Ubuntu-derived gOS in the Everex Cloudbook).
dino: I was playing Devil's Advocate there with Linux, Inc.
>> Apple is an inc, their model is not.
I completely disagree with you. You are being naive and utopian with that statement. Do think Apple would be where it is today and "...create premium products that innovate, stimulate, and seduce..." if it weren't for the profit motive and substantial outside investment (for profit)? Before they even left the garage the model has been "lets design and sell this product for a profit, preferably a big one". Yes, they have become a social cult of sorts, but that in no way negates the facts. The "cult" would never have existed if it weren't for the Inc.
>> Apple is an inc, their model is not.
I completely disagree with you. You are being naive and utopian with that statement. Do think Apple would be where it is today and "...create premium products that innovate, stimulate, and seduce..." if it weren't for the profit motive and substantial outside investment (for profit)? Before they even left the garage the model has been "lets design and sell this product for a profit, preferably a big one". Yes, they have become a social cult of sorts, but that in no way negates the facts. The "cult" would never have existed if it weren't for the Inc.
I'm not saying it's wrong for Apple to be pretty much an exclusively high-end maker of computers, but I'm not saying it's right, either.
I've been told exactly where to go by numerous Apple partisans since I wrote this original entry ... but still, would it kill them to come up with a $500 all-in-one Macintosh box?
Not a laptop, but a desktop that didn't cost $1,000.
In the absence of such a product, though, Linux can thrive. The next time I pay $1,000 for a computer is ... never.
I've been told exactly where to go by numerous Apple partisans since I wrote this original entry ... but still, would it kill them to come up with a $500 all-in-one Macintosh box?
Not a laptop, but a desktop that didn't cost $1,000.
In the absence of such a product, though, Linux can thrive. The next time I pay $1,000 for a computer is ... never.
> The next time I pay $1,000 for a computer is ... never.
Well, yeah. But then Linux users are known as a frugal bunch, to use polite terminology.
Well, yeah. But then Linux users are known as a frugal bunch, to use polite terminology.
> Well, yeah. But then Linux users are known as a frugal bunch, to use polite terminology.
That's a bum rap. Speaking personally, money tends to burn a hole in my pocket when there's cool computer stuff to be bought. But even so, it would be crazy not to try and get the most bang for the buck.
> but still, would it kill them to come up with a $500 all-in-one Macintosh box?
Our mac mini, I think that cost around $500 or so -
That's a bum rap. Speaking personally, money tends to burn a hole in my pocket when there's cool computer stuff to be bought. But even so, it would be crazy not to try and get the most bang for the buck.
> but still, would it kill them to come up with a $500 all-in-one Macintosh box?
Our mac mini, I think that cost around $500 or so -
>You are being naive and utopian with that statement.
Oh please. It's been more than 30 years since I was naive and utopian.
You are confusing motivation with product strategy. They make great products that people want and get rich doing it.
The trick for FOSS - and it may not be possible - is finding a motivation that will result in great products (or non-products or whatever) that people want.
Wouldn't surprise me if the search for motivation involved a few people getting rich doing it.
Oh please. It's been more than 30 years since I was naive and utopian.
You are confusing motivation with product strategy. They make great products that people want and get rich doing it.
The trick for FOSS - and it may not be possible - is finding a motivation that will result in great products (or non-products or whatever) that people want.
Wouldn't surprise me if the search for motivation involved a few people getting rich doing it.
Steve -
There is no right or wrong for a business model. There is only success or failure. Apple has succeeded admirably, which leaves us little room to criticize their model.
Wish I could do so well.
There is no right or wrong for a business model. There is only success or failure. Apple has succeeded admirably, which leaves us little room to criticize their model.
Wish I could do so well.
>> Oh please. It's been more than 30 years since I was naive and utopian.
DIdn't mean to patronize ya. I'll drop the naive. 8^)
Viable product strategies do cost a lot of time and money.
DIdn't mean to patronize ya. I'll drop the naive. 8^)
Viable product strategies do cost a lot of time and money.
I grant that Apple has survived some dark days and is thriving now. I though the iPod wouldn't become a cultural phenomenon until it hit $50 ... and it did it at $300, so what do I know? Not much, admittedly.
Tossing Apple aside, open source has come so far in the past five years, just think where it could be five years from now.
Tossing Apple aside, open source has come so far in the past five years, just think where it could be five years from now.
>just think where it could be five years from now.
It's not going to go much further without people thinking of things in the ways that product development folks think.
Developers scratching an itch can do amazing thing, but that last little bit of the journey requires paying lots of attention to other peoples' itches.
It's not going to go much further without people thinking of things in the ways that product development folks think.
Developers scratching an itch can do amazing thing, but that last little bit of the journey requires paying lots of attention to other peoples' itches.
Ubuntu?
". . . but that last little bit of the journey requires paying lots of attention to other peoples' itches."
Thus - Linux, Inc.
The more rabid "free" software supporters are quick to tear down anything related to corporate involvement or a profit motive, but the simple fact is dino's right. We're done moving forward (as far as market penetration goes), until someone figures out how to really scratch that itch. The dedication and resources that takes requires A WAY TO PAY THE BILLS. And Apple has demonstrated that people will pay for something they "just have to have."
That being said, God save me from Ubuntu! Don't like it, for a variety of reasons covered better by others. In any case, if I don't like the product I won't buy it, but I WOULDN'T BEGRUDGE THEM THEIR SUCCESS. Quite the contrary, while I'm convinced there are better ways of doing things, I'd love to see somebody - ANYBODY - make a huge public splash with Linux. Ultimately, that's one of the greatest strengths of the open source development model - one player's success contributes to the whole field in some way or another.
Thus - Linux, Inc.
The more rabid "free" software supporters are quick to tear down anything related to corporate involvement or a profit motive, but the simple fact is dino's right. We're done moving forward (as far as market penetration goes), until someone figures out how to really scratch that itch. The dedication and resources that takes requires A WAY TO PAY THE BILLS. And Apple has demonstrated that people will pay for something they "just have to have."
That being said, God save me from Ubuntu! Don't like it, for a variety of reasons covered better by others. In any case, if I don't like the product I won't buy it, but I WOULDN'T BEGRUDGE THEM THEIR SUCCESS. Quite the contrary, while I'm convinced there are better ways of doing things, I'd love to see somebody - ANYBODY - make a huge public splash with Linux. Ultimately, that's one of the greatest strengths of the open source development model - one player's success contributes to the whole field in some way or another.
Steve and Dumper --
Presently have 1 Ubuntu, 1 Kubuntu workstations, and share a couple of Ubuntu servers. Kubuntu is going to Opensuse as soon as I get the time. Ubuntu workstation is primarily a myth box sitting under the television. Haven't decided what I will replace it with, if anything.
But...must echo: This Ubuntu stuff is WAY over-appreciated.
Presently have 1 Ubuntu, 1 Kubuntu workstations, and share a couple of Ubuntu servers. Kubuntu is going to Opensuse as soon as I get the time. Ubuntu workstation is primarily a myth box sitting under the television. Haven't decided what I will replace it with, if anything.
But...must echo: This Ubuntu stuff is WAY over-appreciated.
> This Ubuntu stuff is WAY over-appreciated.
It's a heavily modified Debian. Just like Mepis, Xandros, and Linspire. I honestly don't see any reason for an experienced Linux user not to stick to the original. Unless you prefer Red Hat or Slackware derived distro's, of course.
It's a heavily modified Debian. Just like Mepis, Xandros, and Linspire. I honestly don't see any reason for an experienced Linux user not to stick to the original. Unless you prefer Red Hat or Slackware derived distro's, of course.
jdixon and dino, the reason to use Ubuntu is to become part of a large loving family. You get hugs, and always have a place to sleep and get a hot meal. You just have to listen to a brief sermon first...oh wait, never mind, I'm thinking of homeless shelters.
> I'm thinking of homeless shelters.
Not that there's anything wrong with that.
Not that there's anything wrong with that.
TuxTom >>
No thanks. Unless it is an organic social phenomenon I really want no part of "world domination". If it happens you can trust that I'll be using the next-generation underground OS.
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:Markdown: **bold**, *italic*, [text](https://link), - lists, > quotes, $x^2$ for math. Formatting help
Sign up and post (it is free) or Log in and post