Return of Mac Clones?

[MacRumors]

http://www.macrumors.com/images/macrumorsthreadlogo.gif (http://www.macrumors.com)

Silicon.com provides (http://www.silicon.com/silicon/software/os/0,39024651,39153944,00.htm) a speculative but interesting piece of the possibility of Apple (again) licensing the Mac operating system to 3rd party PC manufacturers and brining back Mac Clones.

The article also recaps the history of Mac licensing from an early suggestion by Bill Gates for Apple to do so in 1985.

Although the Apple management team resisted his advice initially, the seed was planted and the rambling clone licensing saga spanned the tenures of four Apple CEOs.

The first faltering steps were taken by John Sculley; Michael Spindler ushered in the first clone agreement and Gil Amelio took the scheme to his heart.

The first Mac clone appeared in 1995 and lasted until Steve Jobs return in 1997. At that time, Apple terminated the program, claiming that the clones were not expanding the market and cannibalizing high end Mac sales.

Apple and Steve Jobs, however, have insisted that Mac OS X will remain on Apple branded Macs, despite being approached by a number of PC manufacturers asking to license Mac OS X.

[Josh396]

I just don't see this happening. Mac's seem to becoming more and more popular so I think Apple would just stick to what they have been doing recently. As long as they keep the OS intact and keep adding good features I think their market share should keep increasing.

GO REX.

Flava Fav.

[AoWolf]

I doubt it apple makes most of its money of hardware. Clones would take away the seamless integration we mac user enjoy.

[alienyouth211]

No....!!!!

I wonder if Dell is listening to this - they wanted OS X

[miketcool]

Attack of the Clones!

[miloblithe]

Doesn't make any real sense with the switch to x86. If Apple wants, it can just allow OSX to be run on any PC. Why bother licensing the hardware? Just go for the software sales to existing PC owners.

[WeBleed4Real]

If it's true, get ready to see some real UGLY lookin' macs then.

[p0intblank]

No, no, and NO! I, like many other Mac users, do not want to see this happen. Mac OS X is just fine on Apple hardware and only Apple hardware. Like Josh is saying, Mac sales are getting better by the day and don't show any signs of slowing down. Just leave it how it is... please.

[Josh396]

If it's true, get ready to see some real UGLY lookin' macs then.
That's one of the main reasons I just can't see it happening. Could you imagine Jobs doing a demo of a new App on a Dell LCD? Nothing against their LCD's, but they just don't come near to the beauty of an Apple one.

[dashiel]

might be feasible at this point. back in the bad old days there was very little differentiation between a clone and an apple produced kit other than price. today people buy apple kit as much for the way it looks as the OS. el steve has done a brilliant job making apple hardware desirable from a purely aesthetic point of view. to pull out the dead horse car analogy, with top of the line design and components apple could position itself as the BMW to the clones volkswagen, if the loss of some customers would be made up for in the volume of new customers.

personally i don't believe it will happen, but it'd be a smarter time to do it than it was back in '96.

[dornoforpyros]

after the "no plans for a video iPod" statement I'm not sure I believe anything Steve says outside of a keynote

[miloblithe]

This is a debate we've had many times. What's best for Apple in the long run. To get up to say, 10-15% of the market and completely control both its hardware and software sides? Or license some elements and go for more? There is a limit to what's advantageous.

[Sun Baked]

More interesting to work with MS to make sure Windows runs well on the new Mactels.

Even though Apple wouldn't "officially" support this OS configuration, the ability for Apple to sell "premium" PCs directly to Windows users does offer a more interesting growth prospect than Mac OS clones.

This opens up a massive opportunity that Apple wouldn't have had otherwise to get Macs and their OS into the hands of people tied to Windows, many people salivated at the Macs -- but couldn't quite make the switch for various reasons, not all of them related to hardware cost issues alone.

Why buy an inferior Chinese x86 clone in Mac clothing, when you can have the real thing...

[DTphonehome]

Unless Apple has very tight control over the design of the computers (which would raise the price anyway, so what would be the advantage?), I don't see this happening. Apple is not ready to become a mass-market commodity yet. They have a nice little niche that they are expanding gradually. They do NOT want to become a Dell (look at Dell's recent earnings and customer satisfaction ratings).

[miloblithe]

the ability for Apple to sell "premium" PCs directly to Windows users does offer a more interesting growth prospect than Mac OS clones.

Good point. I think they'd sell a lot of computers that way, and could generate some solid halo effect from that path as well.

[Object-X]

It will happen eventually, once the Intel switch is completed; probably a couple years. Apple's market share is rising and Microsoft's will start to fall once Vista is released. I've said it before and I'll say it again with even more conviction: Microsoft is falling apart and will eventually break itself up in order to compete. They are moving forward only on inertia and their movement is slowing down. The demand for Apple's OS X will be high and Apple will not be able to resist the money potential of OEMing their OS. iTunes/iPod will give them the financial backing to make the risk acceptable. I predict a strategic alliance with Sony and a VIAO with OS X first.

[Fred Flintstone]

I hear this from PC guys all the time. They are so used to buying garbage and frankensteining it through the years to breathe new life into it that they think this is the only way to buy a computer. I realize the BMW analogy has been used to death, but I just can't see the appeal of taking a BMW engine (OS X) and slapping it inside a Soap Box car you built in your own garage. Aside from the novelty of it, I suppose, but you couldn't expect it to work at peak performance and be reliable.

Clones aren't built in your garage, but they have the same frankensteined mentality. But with the Mac mini, does Apple need clones?

[AlBDamned]

It's unlikely really (though nothing is impossible with Jobs in charge).

The article actually highlights the fact that with Mac Clones: Episode I, people took the cheap option on hardware and it ended up screwing Apple. There's not much that would change. While I think people would still pay for decent looking hardware (and you only need to look at Dell's "Luxury Range" to see no-one else can do it like Apple), the majority of people usually vote with their wallets and more OS's would sell than hardware.

It's not a bad article, but it's speculative comment at best and there's still no concrete reason for this to happen unless there's a major sea change at Apple to go for a direct Windows (i.e. softeware only) competitor. The infrastructure and capabilities of Apple are likely not yet up to that either IMO.

[link92]

Apple and Steve Jobs, however, have insisted that Mac OS X will remain on Apple branded Macs, despite being approached by a number of PC manufacturers asking to license Mac OS X.
I don't really see what that means. A year ago he said there would be no video iPod. A year later, at the same place, he announces a video iPod. Surely we should expect what he has said "no" to?

[MacsRgr8]

So, will Hell freeze over again?

First the iTunes for Windows
Then Mac OS X on Intel
Now the return of the Clones??

Nah.... was a bad idea then, is a bad idea now. Same ol' story: it will cannablize the Apple hardware sales.

[Sedulous]

Does anyone here picture Apple as a software company only?

[macorama]

Yeah right, next thing Apple will be switching Intel...

[MacsRgr8]

Does anyone here picture Apple as a software company only?


No way.....

Apple makes such beautiful hardware. What would Jonathan Ive do?? :p

No, I wil always see Apple as a company making the "total package".

[paulypants]

Does anyone here picture Apple as a software company only?

I don't, because they aren't.

[Stella]

This would be one way of rapidly expanding the Mac marketshare.

It wouldn't do Apple much good in terms of hardware sales when licensees can put out machines significantly cheaper than the current selling price of iMacs et al ( i.e., the $400 Mac Clone ).

I'm wondering - did Apple increase its marketshare when Apple licensed clones in the 90s?

[BornAgainMac]

I bet it will be done in phases.

1) Apple sells hardware exclusively
2) Apple licenses to a small select hardware vendors
3) Apple sells the OS to consumers

The reason they have to sell the hardware / OSX exclusively now is because the marketshare is too small to make enough money. As the marketshare increases to perhaps 10%, open it up to select vendors and then perhaps at 30% marketshare it will be enough to sell to consumers.

[Lord Blackadder]

As long as Steve Jobs is CEO there will be no clones. It goes against everything he says about an integrated package designed by one company.

If anything gets licensed it will be a product (like the Moto phones) that both enhances public awareness of Apple and does not compete with any existing or planned Apple product.

[Stella]

LOL.

The Clone Wars

[syklee26]

if they offer not the current OS but one-generation-passed OS. For example, Apple might want to find a way to allow Panther available but not upgradable to Tiger.

if they can figure it out, the revenue increase would be astounding.

since Tiger works with intel (supposedly), why not offer Tiger to 3rd party but not Leopard? let macs be loaded with Leopard and continue letting users enjoy the superior OS, while making Tiger available for some more revenue?

[_bnkr612]

Design Standards.

That's all Steve and Jonathan need to have if they do it.

Clones would be dumb, I am comfy in the small Apple community. I don't want to go to a friend's house knowing I will see an aweful Macinclone running the latest cat OS...

Rubbish...

[steve_hill4]

No, no, no. Perhaps in another few years, but not now. Clones will be bad for Apple. They are financially bouyant with sales of Macs at the moment and iPod sales are giving huge earnings too, they have too much going on to even consider the return of the clones. Let them switch to intel, get the OS, software and hardware problems this may throw up sorted, try to fix any potential concerns, (people managing to get Leopard running on their grey boxes), then start to consider the clone program returning.

I would however advocate a policy of quality control with any clones, only apple approved designs allowed.

[dejo]

This would be one way of rapidly expanding the Mac marketshare.

Actually, Mac marketshare would probably drop. I certainly doubt it would rapidly expand. As for OS X's marketshare though...

[SiliconAddict]

I've been saying since the day the Mini came out that Apple could do this again. With some restrictions....

1. That it only licenses out the Mac Mini to a 3rd party. Let them dabble in the shallow end of the pool while Apple focuses on the higher end "stuff".

2. Apple gets to monitor QC on the hardware and design. (if any.) If for any reason Apple deems that quality is slipping they can pull the contract and the licensing after a two month "warning" period.


This CAN work but with a twist.

[steve_hill4]

I'm wondering - did Apple increase its marketshare when Apple licensed clones in the 90s?
I hope that was meant as a stupid question, because I think their share actually decreased during the clone program. It certainly didn't come near the levels that they would have liked or would have got had they opened up their OS to all comers early on.

[AlmostThere]

it will cannablize the Apple hardware sales.

Apple gets a much higher margin on it's operating system than on it's hardware. It is far more profitable, although Apple currently makes more money on it's hardware as it sells more hardware at a smaller profit.

Remember, IBM used to be a 'hardware' company. No reason Apple can't change, too.

[runninmac]

I hope they dont. They probobly wont but thats what we said with Intel.

But It now does make another reason for making the switch to intel becuase now all the x86 manufacters could use it.

[wPod]

they arent going to license to clones b/c they are just going to sell OS x86 to any x86 machine. so anyone can buy the OS for their PC through apple. then apple will directly take on M$ . . . well, you know, maybe

[SiliconAddict]

That's one of the main reasons I just can't see it happening. Could you imagine Jobs doing a demo of a new App on a Dell LCD? Nothing against their LCD's, but they just don't come near to the beauty of an Apple one.


You mean like this one....http://www.severdia.com/images/blog/jobs_on_a_dell.jpg

[dual64bit]

This reminds me of that funny video made "We're not a clone now"

Anyone got a link to that thing or seen it before?!? It featured some lip singing dancers arond the Apple Garden with the dogcow and everything!!

hahah, I laughed for hours when I saw that..

[steve_hill4]

Apple gets a much higher margin on it's operating system than on it's hardware. It is far more profitable, although Apple currently makes more money on it's hardware as it sells more hardware at a smaller profit.

Remember, IBM used to be a 'hardware' company. No reason Apple can't change, too.
Apple still say they make more money from hardware sales. If they make a higher percentage from software sales, then okay, but as a dollar amoung, hardware is apple's bread and butter.

IBm did used to be a hardware company, but now many would consider them to be a slow failure. They may still be fairly famous and respected, but they are a bit of a joke for allowing others to clone them and take their market share from them to the point in having to seel their pc division. Would you want to see apple become a mediocre microsoft, because it would take decades to overtake them and so they would become a poorer version of them if they did move out of hardware.

[SiliconAddict]

That's one of the main reasons I just can't see it happening. Could you imagine Jobs doing a demo of a new App on a Dell LCD? Nothing against their LCD's, but they just don't come near to the beauty of an Apple one.

beauty smeauty.....When I can save $500 on a superior Dell monitor that has the same bloody display in it who gives a crap.

[Stella]

I hope that was meant as a stupid question, because I think their share actually decreased during the clone program. It certainly didn't come near the levels that they would have liked or would have got had they opened up their OS to all comers early on.


Why would this be a stupid question? The clone programme may well have increased the Mac marketshare ( even if just a little ) - I don't know the history of Mac marketshare of around 1995 - 1997 - that is why I'm asking the question.


I'll rephrase it - did the Mac OS User base increase or decrease.

( I'm assuming people would have the intelligence to work out that when I'm talking about Mac marketshare, I'm not talking about Apple in isolation but Apple + mac clones - hence the revised question - Mac OS User base ).

[dual64bit]

Found it:

Check this out for a laugh:
http://www.esm.psu.edu/Faculty/Gray/graphics/movies/Apple-Music-Video-We-are-a-clone-now.mov

Tip: You may want to do a "save target as.." (if using firefox)

[Lynxpro]

Clones are not bad. I swear, some of you folk are so close-minded and rabid-Apple-fanatical you can't see the forest for the trees.

Let's look back to the cloning era of the Macs. Why did it fail? Because Apple licensed the cloning to niche players. The niche players did not expand the market...they only ended up competing against Apple. At the time, Apple also charged exhorbitant prices too.

Today, its a different ballgame. People are fed up with Windows. Yet when one single company makes a computer (or arguably almost any electric device), the consumer tends to think back to the Sony Betamax fiasco and puts more credence in something that is actually a *standard*. Thus it hurts the argument for OS X since only one manufacturer ships hardware that supports it (officially).

Like it or not, Apple does not have the capacity to pump out as many computers as Dell per year. Manufacturing shortages also hurt potential sales, especially during the holidays. There needs to be some level of licensed cloning if OS X is to overtake Windows.

Widescale cloning is bad, but if you limit it to a handful of companies (like HP and Sony), it will cement OS X, sales will go through the roof, and within 5 years, people will be asking, "Microsoft who"?

Even under that scenario, Apple's sales will continue to improve. Some people might be price conscious, but others will still opt for "the real thing". And hardware design licensing would keep the incompatibility issues from creeping into OS X land that plagues the Windows platform.

So in conclusion, cloning-with-an-executable-plan is better than the current situation. Word.

[Sun Baked]

Why would this be a stupid question? The clone programme may well have increased the Mac marketshare ( even if just a little ) - I don't know the history of Mac marketshare of around 1995 - 1997 - that is why I'm asking the question.


I'll rephrase it - did the Mac OS User base increase or decrease.

( I'm assuming people would have the intelligence to work out that when I'm talking about Mac marketshare, I'm not talking about Apple in isolation but Apple + mac clones - hence the revised question - Mac OS User base ).It didn't capture a significant portion of new user sales like everyone thought it would.

All the cheap Mac clones did was sell cheap Mac clones to current Mac users, decimating Apple hardware sales.

The growth of new Mac users at the time wasn't too significant, making the clones a major disaster.

[~Shard~]

I don't know if this would be the best idea, but it doesn't impact me at all. Whether there are clones out there or not, I'll still always buy a real, original Apple Mac. :cool:

[SiliconAddict]

Also guys keep in mind one thing. Windows users are not Mac fanatics. They aren't going to buy a new Mac OS every other year. If Apple decided to turn into a pure software shop they would be in the same predicament
that MS is in. Windows 2000 is pretty damn good and MS is having a very hard time getting people to upgrade to XP.

Same deal would happen to Apple if they decided to make their OS their bread and butter. Once PC users upgrade to Tiger/Leopard/etc its going to be damn hard to get them to upgrade over something like Expose, Spotlight, or Dashboard. Apple would sell a **** load of copies of OS X initially to PC users, but once it hits critical mass....sales would tank. At least right now Apple can bring out a new zippy computer with a new zippy OS and sell several copies of the OS worth in that one sale.
No I don't see Apple doing this anytime soon.

[FoxyKaye]

Does anyone here picture Apple as a software company only?
No, but everyone has their price. If Apple sees an advantage (read: profit) to licensing its OS to the likes of Dell, HP and Gateway, it will. It's not about, nor ever has been, about "having the best stuff." It's about making money - a lesson Jobs learned right and proper when he was booted from Apple. The bottom line is that regardless of Jobs' vision, Apple is a corporation with a Board of Directors and stockholders - whatever is good for the bottom line is what Apple will do next.

[shamino]

Clones are good for the consumer, but bad for Apple.

They're good for the consumer, because you now have more choices. You can stick with Apple gear, you can get a dirt-cheap ugly box that just gets the job done (like Dell's stuff), or you can get a souped-up hot-rod system (like Alienware).

They're bad for Apple because lots of people who today are buying Apple equipment will choose to buy a clone. If too many do (as happened last time around), it can even kill the company. Clones can only help Apple if it serves to greatly incrase the Mac OS user-base. If it doesn't, but simply moves Mac users to other hardware vendors, then it's counterproductive.

WRT some of the arguments others have posted here...

Apple will not become another Dell. Maybe there will be cheap Dell-like companies selling Mac clones, but that won't affect the quality or support Apple will give to people buying Apple equipment.

Sure, some of the clones will be ugly. So what? The people who want looks can continue to buy Apple gear. Those that don't care about looks can bey the clone. Wanting to pay a premium for Ive designs shouldn't be a prerequisite for wanting to use Mac OS.

As for the mini, it is not the only possible low-cost system, you know. A lot of people would like to have a low-cost system with PCI slots, like you find in many cheap PC's. A stereotypical minitower may be ugly, but lots of people would be more than willing to sacrifice looks in favor of internal expansion capability. You shouldn't be forced to buy a PowerMac (at least four times the price) in order to get this.

What everyone seems to forget is that if Apple starts selling system software that can run on generic PC's, they will be going head-to-head against Microsoft on their home turf. The market is littered with the remains of products that tried this (OS/2, BeOS, OpenSTEP, etc.) I think Apple would be incredibly stupid to try this tactic. Better to wait for Microsoft to implode on its own (which it will, eventually, but possibly not for another 5-10 years) and then see about selling into that market.

[Marx55]

Several steps to take the computing world by storm:

1. Apple releases Mactel.
2. Apple licenses Mac OS X to Dell & HP.
3. Apple licenses Mac OS X to any PC-maker. WINDOWS IS OVER!
4. Apple fully opens Mac OS X, including Aqua (as Linux).
5. Apple gives Mac OS X for free (as Linux). LINUS IS OVER!
6. Apple holds 99% of the world Operating System share!
7. Apple holds 10-20% of the world Computer Hardware share SELLING HIGH QUALITY AND BETTER-DESIGN HARDWARE TO 99% OF MARKETWHARE (IN 2005 APPLE SELLS TO ONLY 3-4% WORLDWIDE)!
8. Apple sits down and relax to count the money!

That simple!

[IJ Reilly]

I hope that was meant as a stupid question, because I think their share actually decreased during the clone program. It certainly didn't come near the levels that they would have liked or would have got had they opened up their OS to all comers early on.

Yes, it did drop. Essentially, the cloner-makers gobbled up a chunk of Apple's hardware market share but didn't add anything overall to the Mac market share. The way this was reported in the media was really frustrating -- that Apple's market share was plummeting. This is what they said, even though the Mac market share was more or less stabile. I think this episode really led the the decline of the Mac during the late '90s for the principal reason that the Mac market was seen by the public to be shrinking rapidly, even though it really wasn't, at least not at first. It turned into a double-whammy.

[MacVault]

I would rather see OS X sold to just run on any old x86 hardware rather than actual "Apple-endorsed" clones. Seems like "clones" could lower the perception of quality of genuine Apple hardware. I dun no, just a thought.

[shamino]

Remember, IBM used to be a 'hardware' company.
And they still are. They sell workstations, minis and mainframes.

PC clones may have allowed the Microsoft/MS-DOS/PC platform to take over the world, but it didn't do a thing to help IBM. IBM lost the lion's share of the market to all the clone-makers. So much so that they eventually sold that entire branch of the company to some Chinese company.

Microsoft was the big winner in the PC clone market, not IBM.

[Lord Blackadder]

The 1995-1997 clones were actually good computers, but they were very similar to Apple's due to the small number of different PPC motherboards available.

Also this period was one of Apple's darkest hours financially, and they were very worried that clones would cannibalize Apple sales.

But most importantly, the clones failed because Steve Jobs returned and he has never showed any interest in loosening Apple's total control over the design and manufacture of all of it's products. It is true that Apple sometimes farms out design and manufacturing work, but they always keep a close eye on things and never allow re-branding (except in the case of the iPod+HP).

Jobs has been pretty consistent in describing Apple as the antithesis of manufacturers like Dell that thrive in the clone-type business to the point of establishing a brand image.

I guess he could easily switch on the RDF and do a 180 on this, but to this date Jobs has always been completely against clones because he has too little control over the products they release, and dislikes the potential for competition.

Right now Apple makes most of its money from the iPods and laptop lines, so hardware is still a big deal. This issue will probably crop up fairly often if the Intel switch is as successful as we hope since PC clone makers will want to get in on the action.

[AlmostThere]

Apple still say they make more money from hardware sales. If they make a higher percentage from software sales, then okay, but as a dollar amoung, hardware is apple's bread and butter.

IBm did used to be a hardware company, but now many would consider them to be a slow failure. They may still be fairly famous and respected, but they are a bit of a joke for allowing others to clone them and take their market share from them to the point in having to seel their pc division. Would you want to see apple become a mediocre microsoft, because it would take decades to overtake them and so they would become a poorer version of them if they did move out of hardware.

With a vested interest in all 3 next generation consoles, I think it is hard to say IBM are a slow failure. While it is their services that they really push and advertise now, they still get 2/3 profit and 1/2 revenue from other sources (mainly hardware). Selling their PC division was cutting a loss in a market they were wasting energy competing in, and money better spent in R&D.

But realistically, by 2007, OS X for x86 will be available in nearly every car boot sale and on every shop shelf in any country where copyright enforcement is, well, somewhat under par. Look at where this has taken MS in China. Everyone knows MS, so that's what they are going to buy. Apple need to bridge the alienation that it's software creates and the only (OK, best) way to do that is through use. It works in Apple stores, it work in Apple users. Look at the market this creates for bulk sales of genuine Apple software, especially the biggy, a business tool. Apple need a way to get their hardware on to office desks.

The question is, in terms of a business, how can they reach that critical mass where they sell enough software to cover the losses in hardware.

Of course, this is all assuming Apple are aiming big, but it was SJ who said something about dents, the universe and the reason for our existence :)

[IJ Reilly]

And they still are. They sell workstations, minis and mainframes.

PC clones may have allowed the Microsoft/MS-DOS/PC platform to take over the world, but it didn't do a thing to help IBM. IBM lost the lion's share of the market to all the clone-makers. So much so that they eventually sold that entire branch of the company to some Chinese company.

Microsoft was the big winner in the PC clone market, not IBM.

Of course. IBM never intended the PC to be cloned. IBM lost big when they lost control of the PC hardware market.

[AlmostThere]

And they still are. They sell workstations, minis and mainframes.

I know that. Let's not forget chips. But to many in the business world, they are an IT Services company now. That's where they are taking off.

[shamino]

IBM did used to be a hardware company, but now many would consider them to be a slow failure. They may still be fairly famous and respected, but they are a bit of a joke for allowing others to clone them and take their market share from them to the point in having to seel their pc division.
IBM didn't "allow" anyone to clone the PC. They never licensed their hardware tech. They sued the clone makers, and ended up losing the suits.

Their big screw-up was allowing Microsoft (the system software developer) the right to sell to third-parties. But at the time, nobody thought this would amount to anything. After all, how many people attempted to make clones of the other computers that were popular at the time (Apple II, Atari 400/800, Commodore 64, etc.) The only other clones that I can think of would be a few Apple II clones, and they were distributed without a license for the OS.

[IJ Reilly]

IBM didn't "allow" anyone to clone the PC. They never licensed their hardware tech. They sued the clone makers, and ended up losing the suits.

Their big screw-up was allowing Microsoft (the system software developer) the right to sell to third-parties. But at the time, nobody thought this would amount to anything. After all, how many people attempted to make clones of the other computers that were popular at the time (Apple II, Atari 400/800, Commodore 64, etc.) The only other clones that I can think of would be a few Apple II clones, and they were distributed without a license for the OS.

Yeah, and unfortunately the "conventional wisdom" about how the PC market evolved (conventional wisdom so often being unwise) guided Apple into the disastrous clone experiment. If any company has ever successfully licensed clone products, then I don't know what it is. Nobody deliberately creates competitors for their products, and survives.

[steve_hill4]

Why would this be a stupid question? The clone programme may well have increased the Mac marketshare ( even if just a little ) - I don't know the history of Mac marketshare of around 1995 - 1997 - that is why I'm asking the question.


I'll rephrase it - did the Mac OS User base increase or decrease.
Allow me to apologise, I actually meant to put rhetorical question originally. I am sorry if I offended you. :(

Anyway, I think their marketshare did fall, hence why Steve came back, saw that they weren't only losing money on every clone sold, but it also wasn't having the desired effect and pulled the plug. Having a quick search before hitting reply seems to support this too. I wasn't a big mac fan back then though and even if I was, I would have been too young to remember figures now. Perhaps someone wants to confrim this.

[aegisdesign]

[QUOTE=MacsRgr8]Apple makes such beautiful hardware. What would Jonathan Ive do?? :p
QUOTE]

Perhaps he can design software user interfaces?

There's an obvious need for someone doing it at Apple rather than the botched together mess it's developing into now.

[shamino]

With a vested interest in all 3 next generation consoles, I think it is hard to say IBM are a slow failure.
IBM is a conglomerate. You can't take success in one division and apply it to the company as a whole.

Their chipmaking division is a great success. Same for their big-iron manufacturing.

Their PC business was in a tailspin and was sold off to the Chinese. Ditto for their printer division (spun off into Lexmark).

I'm not sure how successful their hard drive business was, but they ended up selling that to Hitachi, so it must've had its share of problems.
But realistically, by 2007, OS X for x86 will be available in nearly every car boot sale and on every shop shelf in any country where copyright enforcement is, well, somewhat under par.
Unless Apple's anti-hacking code ends up working. Recent reports say that the latest drops of the Intel system software is much more hard to crack than the initial release.

But this doesn't mean anything. In those places where piracy is rampant, Apple licensing the OS isn't going to boost sales. These people will continue trading pirated copies, whether or not there exists a legal alternative. Just like they do with Windows right now.
The question is, in terms of a business, how can they reach that critical mass where they sell enough software to cover the losses in hardware.
That is the big question. I once did a back-of-the-envelope analysis, and I think the conclusion was that they'd need something like 50% market penetration to make that work.

I don't think Microsoft is going to lose that much of the market. At least not in the next 10 years, which is an eternity for the computer business.

[snowmoon]

Seems crazy on it's face.... but....

Hardware margins are just not so attractive anymore ( well computers specifically ). If you look at how apple profits have been breaking down it keeps shifting towards iPods rahter than computers. Based on this continued shift, clones don't seem so insane anymore now does it?

[shamino]

Yeah, and unfortunately the "conventional wisdom" about how the PC market evolved (conventional wisdom so often being unwise) guided Apple into the disastrous clone experiment. If any company has ever successfully licensed clone products, then I don't know what it is. Nobody deliberately creates competitors for their products, and survives.
Apple's biggest problem was that they kept on seeing IBM as their main competitor, when it was Microsoft (feeding the PC clones) that was really taking over the market.

By the time they took off those blinders, they were a niche player in a market that they created.

[limi]

That's one of the main reasons I just can't see it happening. Could you imagine Jobs doing a demo of a new App on a Dell LCD? Nothing against their LCD's, but they just don't come near to the beauty of an Apple one.

Well, I have owned 4 (count 'em ;) Apple 23" Cinema Displays, and they were all returned to Apple within a week because of bad color reproduction and replaced with 24" Dell screens for 1/3 of the price.

The colors show properly, it has Picture-in-Picture and inputs for everything from SVHS to composite and VGA/DVI (which is what I use), and it has a built-in memory card reader for cameras to boot.

I may have been extremely unlucky and gotten four Apple screens that all had manufacturing defects, but I doubt it. Every 23" Cinema Display I have seen has major color issues.

The 20" and 30" are fine, though - it just seems to be an issue with the 23".

Anyway - the high-end screens of Dell (they don't have a 30", unfortunately) definitely whips Apple's offerings, both on price and quality.

[steve_hill4]

IBM didn't "allow" anyone to clone the PC. They never licensed their hardware tech. They sued the clone makers, and ended up losing the suits.

Their big screw-up was allowing Microsoft (the system software developer) the right to sell to third-parties. But at the time, nobody thought this would amount to anything. After all, how many people attempted to make clones of the other computers that were popular at the time (Apple II, Atari 400/800, Commodore 64, etc.) The only other clones that I can think of would be a few Apple II clones, and they were distributed without a license for the OS.
I think apple however knew how to clamp down on the un-lincensed cloners a lot better. IBM made big mistakes in a way and had they been able to control those early clones and wipe them out, it would have been a fairer fight between apple and IBM, Mac OS and Microsoft. Would have been interesting to see who would have won out overall then.

[IJ Reilly]

Allow me to apologise, I actually meant to put rhetorical question originally. I am sorry if I offended you. :(

Anyway, I think their marketshare did fall, hence why Steve came back, saw that they weren't only losing money on every clone sold, but it also wasn't having the desired effect and pulled the plug. Having a quick search before hitting reply seems to support this too. I wasn't a big mac fan back then though and even if I was, I would have been too young to remember figures now. Perhaps someone wants to confrim this.

I already have, in post #53.

[DaftUnion]

No, no, and no. Not a good idea.

[shamino]

Hardware margins are just not so attractive anymore ( well computers specifically ). If you look at how apple profits have been breaking down it keeps shifting towards iPods rahter than computers. Based on this continued shift, clones don't seem so insane anymore now does it?
Apple's margins on Macs may be less than iPods, but so what?

Companies survive off of profit, not margins. 50% margins on a $100 product is not as profitable as 30% margins on a $3000 product.

And Apple's Mac margins are much higher than the rest of the small computer industry, even if they aren't as high as the iPod's margins.

[aegisdesign]

One way they could expand the sales of OSX would be to licence it to niche platforms that Apple aren't doing. eg. the sub-notebook market. I'd love an OQO with OSX on it. Apple aren't going to produce that themselves so there's no competition there.

There are probably other markets like kiosks, thin clients and ruggedised applications that Apple are never going to touch.

[IJ Reilly]

Apple's biggest problem was that they kept on seeing IBM as their main competitor, when it was Microsoft (feeding the PC clones) that was really taking over the market.

By the time they took off those blinders, they were a niche player in a market that they created.

Yes, exactly. I discussed this at some length with Guy Kawasaki years ago. According to his business philosophy, every company needs an "enemy," somebody they want to beat in the marketplace. He said their big mistake during the early years of the Mac was choosing IBM as their enemy (hence, the infamous/notorious 1984 commercial). What Apple didn't know then was that IBM wasn't their real enemy. It was Microsoft. Of course in fairness they would have no way of knowing that until 1986-87 at the earliest, at a time when Apple was depending on Microsoft for important software products.

[aegisdesign]

I think apple however knew how to clamp down on the un-lincensed cloners a lot better. IBM made big mistakes in a way and had they been able to control those early clones and wipe them out, it would have been a fairer fight between apple and IBM, Mac OS and Microsoft. Would have been interesting to see who would have won out overall then.

The PC architecture was incredibly simple. A very small BIOS and an OS that booted off of tape or disk. All the other parts were off the shelf and the graphics and sound were all on ISA cards anyway.

When MS released MS-DOS separately and the likes of Phoenix producing a clean room BIOS, there wasn't anything they could do.

IIRC there was even a Peter Norton book with a dissasembled version of the BIOS for ASM programmers interested in the innards of INT21.

There were clean room versions of the Mac's ROMs but the OS was never cloned AFAIK. It was a much a harder task to clone a Mac and even an Apple II or CBM64. And with Apple being in control, all they had to do was keep changing the hardware and cloning became impractical.

[BenRoethig]

Doesn't make any real sense with the switch to x86. If Apple wants, it can just allow OSX to be run on any PC. Why bother licensing the hardware? Just go for the software sales to existing PC owners.

Most of the money in operating systems is made in OEM sales. With upgrades one person legitimately buys it then about fifty of his friends, co-workers, and family borrows the disk.

If it's true, get ready to see some real UGLY lookin' macs then.

99.999% of the computer buying public cares more that it does what what they want it to. You are a very small, but very vocal minority. Mac OS X is going to show up on non Apple computers. Does Apple want a buggy, hacked version out there that hurts their image and sends people right to vista or do they want a stable, supported version that makes them money?

[Stella]

Allow me to apologise, I actually meant to put rhetorical question originally. I am sorry if I offended you. :(


No offence taken.

[Plymouthbreezer]

Let's not do clones Apple. ;)

[plastikimo]

They should expand the gaming market. All that great hardware, and no games utilize it. where can i get a mac version of FFXI?

[Marx55]

Apple will not be able to significantly improve market-share unless they start licensing their technology to 3rd party vendors. Simple as that. If they want to remain a cottage industry, then they should just continue doing what they're doing now. If they want to become a dominant player, they'll need to diversify.

Absolutey right! Either this or the incredibly shrinking market share. Can Apple afford to have a market share of 1%? 0.1%? 0.01%? There is only one way to survive: increase market share to at least 20-30%.

[russed]

i feel like this is one of those NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO moment that there are in films!

[DTphonehome]

Several steps to take the computing world by storm:

1. Apple releases Mactel.
2. Apple licenses Mac OS X to Dell & HP.
3. Apple licenses Mac OS X to any PC-maker. WINDOWS IS OVER!
4. Apple fully opens Mac OS X, including Aqua (as Linux).
5. Apple gives Mac OS X for free (as Linux). LINUS IS OVER!
6. Apple holds 99% of the world Operating System share!
7. Apple holds 10-20% of the world Computer Hardware share SELLING HIGH QUALITY AND BETTER-DESIGN HARDWARE TO 99% OF MARKETWHARE (IN 2005 APPLE SELLS TO ONLY 3-4% WORLDWIDE)!
8. Apple sits down and relax to count the money!

That simple!

Allow me to elaborate on your ridiculous fiction:

9. Apple donates money to politicians
10. Politicians vote to change Constitution to allow corporations to become President.
11. Commander Jobs, head of the Apple party, goes to war against the EU for still using Windows.
12. Leveraging the combined resources of his planet, Overlord Jobs contacts extraterrestrial life.
13. After conquering the known Universe, Steve He-Whose-Name-Cannot-Be-Uttered mandates that every computer in the Universe run OS X. "Rosetta II" released to emulate all known computers, including the abacus.
14. Profit.

And how exactly does giving your software away = profit? Netscape, anyone?

[Sun Baked]

And how exactly does giving your software away = profit? Netscape, anyone?Well all that profit from the marketshare, downloads, and Google ads. :p

Of course with all that fantastic revenue, you're probably losing money faster than Jack Whitakker at a strip club ...

[DTphonehome]

Anyone here try to wakeboard? If so, you know that before you can get up out of the water, the boat has to be going fast enough so that you can leverage yourself up over the board. If you try to pick yourself too early, you'll fall flat on your face, and your ride is over.

Same thing here. I'm not saying it's impossible for Apple to do this at some point, but they haven't built up the momentum that they need to guarantee that they will stand on their feet after seriously cutting into their hardware sales. Simply licensing OS X isn't going to suddenly induce millions upon millions of users to ditch Windows and buy OS X. And that's what it would take for Apple to become a serious player in the OS sphere, and make a real profit from software exclusively.

[BenRoethig]

Clones are not bad. I swear, some of you folk are so close-minded and rabid-Apple-fanatical you can't see the forest for the trees.

Let's look back to the cloning era of the Macs. Why did it fail? Because Apple licensed the cloning to niche players. The niche players did not expand the market...they only ended up competing against Apple. At the time, Apple also charged exhorbitant prices too.

Today, its a different ballgame. People are fed up with Windows. Yet when one single company makes a computer (or arguably almost any electric device), the consumer tends to think back to the Sony Betamax fiasco and puts more credence in something that is actually a *standard*. Thus it hurts the argument for OS X since only one manufacturer ships hardware that supports it (officially).

Like it or not, Apple does not have the capacity to pump out as many computers as Dell per year. Manufacturing shortages also hurt potential sales, especially during the holidays. There needs to be some level of licensed cloning if OS X is to overtake Windows.

Widescale cloning is bad, but if you limit it to a handful of companies (like HP and Sony), it will cement OS X, sales will go through the roof, and within 5 years, people will be asking, "Microsoft who"?

Even under that scenario, Apple's sales will continue to improve. Some people might be price conscious, but others will still opt for "the real thing". And hardware design licensing would keep the incompatibility issues from creeping into OS X land that plagues the Windows platform.

So in conclusion, cloning-with-an-executable-plan is better than the current situation. Word.

Couldn't have said it better myself. Look, Apple markets their HARDWARE to a certain clientele. They are a boutique manufacturer like Alienware or Velocity Micro. They offer a computer that is of higher quality and different than your standard PC. That clientele is not going to go to Dell, they would have bought one in the first place if that was what they wanted. On the other hand, someone might our OS, but also want something a little more conventional, but still high quality and buy from a boutique manufacturer or care more about the drive and get a HP or Dell. We are in no position to judge what another wants for hardware.

[shamino]

Mac OS X is going to show up on non Apple computers. Does Apple want a buggy, hacked version out there that hurts their image and sends people right to vista or do they want a stable, supported version that makes them money?
Hurts their image? how?

Is Microsoft's image hurt by the fact that Windows becomes very unstable when run in a virtual machine on Linux boxes? Hardly.

When was the last time you saw any software product's image hurt by people hacking it to run on unsupported hardware? Has OS X's image been hurt by those people who run it on pre-G3 PowerMacs?

[nagromme]

I doubt it will happen any time soon, but it COULD happen sometime and doesn't HAVE to be bad idea.

The situation now--or the situation in 5 years--is NOT the same as the situation before cloning the last time.

And the WAY cloning is handled wouldn't have to be the same.

So the problems of last time DO NOT have to apply to every future scenario.

For instance, I can see Apple licensing OS X, along WITH very specific hardware specs (so supporting OS X doesn't become the chaos it is with Windows), to one or two strategic partners, at just the right time.

There's a balance of course--increase the Mac market as a whole, even by cloning, and Apple's OWN hardware would sell more too. Plus they get software revenues. Done right, it could be good business for Apple. (And more choices for us too? Can't complain there. Then again, my first Mac WAS a clone :) )

It would make much more sense to license OS X to strategic partners--meaning that Apple has some say over keeping the hardware consistent on some level--than to sell OS X in a box for "any old PC." Supporting THAT would be a nightmare. I don't ever want to see OS X supporting such a variety of machines that it becomes bloated and buggy--which is part of Microsoft's problem.

I don't know if it will ever make strategic sense to have clones, but it would NOT come as a total shock to me, and I would not object to Apple doing it, in the right way. Maybe with Leopard or beyond.

Until then, the baseless rumors and speculation about cloning (and about selling boxed copies of OS X for Intel) are good things! :) Because they scare MS in a long-term sense (good leverage, if we ever were to fear MS killing off Mac Office). And more importantly, because that's great mindshare: it says "PC owners WANT OS X!" Maybe they'll have to get a Mac to have it... but the idea that OS X is something people would want on their PCs is a powerful one. Dangle that carrot forever--it sells Macs :)

[egor]

What poor journalism.. why do people keep making these ridiculous predictions?!?

Just because pc-builders keep asking for OSX adds absolutely no strength to the argument that it will happen. I mean, of course they want OSX.. by offering their customers the option of it they hardly lose out and actually stand to gain..

..whilst it would adversely affect apple's hardware sales.. afterall the average consumer will pay less for the same amount of functionality regardless of differences in aesthetics (or rather, lack of aesthetics) as can be seen in the x86 market of today.

And naturally its far too big a risk to take if the aim is to grab a huge chunk of the market, especially considering its one that one would not be able to gauge as to whether its worked or not until a decade or so later.. several years of greatly reduced profits I would assume is not so appealing.

At the end of the day the chicken or egg situation still stands (many developers won't develop for OSX because of small marketshare.. many consumers won't go mac due to lack of third party apps).. licensing OSX would not make the problem go away.

Apple is a 50 billion dollar company.. Microsoft is a 283 billion dollar company.. and yet its only got a three percent or so marketshare.. quite clearly hardware has to be key to their business plan.

[ArcaneDevice]

the cloning situation back in the 90's was a totally different place for Apple. They were running 0S7(?) from what I remember which was not significantly better then Windows at that time. Mac hardware was still a niche thing with limited comsumer market presence and the internet was still a newborn and not required technology. And those who wanted to be clone manufacturers (oooh, Umax) were pretty small manufacturers. Apple was falling apart financially.

Jump forward to 2005 and you have OSX, which is miles ahead of Windows. So far it's not even funny any more. A significant hardware presence in the consumer world thanks to the iPod and Apple Stores and everyone has to be online to exist in the world. Right now major manufacturers want to build Mac compatible machines. Their is huge potetntial for lift off here and the only thing that is stopping them is Jobs.

Personally I don't care what the machine looks like. If a line of Sony designed Macs is lined up in Best Buy that can only be a good thing. I have a choice of whose brand I will buy, just like every other piece of consumer hardware. If the Apple units are better I will buy one of those, if not I won't.

Do you want to keep the small audience for OSX and with it the tiny amount of software available? (Anyone played BF2 or FEAR on their Mac yet? No.) Having presence in major stores with competitively priced and familiar looking hardware would be a huge bonus for regular consumers.

[iMeowbot]

Wasn't Apple's last venture into clones under the former CEO, and not Jobs?

Yes, it was under Spindler, and it was at a time when Apple were utterly failing to produce a modern operating system. Cloning did nothing at all to grow the Mac market, and that's why it went away. Today, with an OS that people actually want, it could be very different.

[hoppo99]

Absolutey right! Either this or the incredibly shrinking market share. Can Apple afford to have a market share of 1%? 0.1%? 0.01%? There is only one way to survive: increase market share to at least 20-30%.

Certainly would be nice to increase market share to 20-30%! Unfortunately it is a little more complicated than that. I can certainly see Apple licensing Mac OS X to a few partners, but not release a universal x86 version. One of the reasons OS X works so well is that Apple controls the whole box. With just a few partners, perhaps one or two, Apple can still control the whole box and keep variations and potential bugs to a minimum thereby stopping the OS X experience from being as buggy as Windows. If there was the clout of an HP or Dell behind Apple then the OS X market share would increase rapidly. People are scared of being locked into Apple's hardware.

[liketom]

Jobs has a vision in his head ...and it will cost you to share in that vision


time will tell

[zap2]

That could be crazy, but would be cool to see who could pull of a good Mac Clone but it would end up hurting Apple more then it even could help


I dont want to see Apple become a MS

[egor]

Additionally the obvious reasons why people would choose a dell with OSX over a mac with OSX would be cost..

.. a) the outlaying cost

.. and b) the upgradeability and cost of doing so of the dell compared to the mac.

Surely it would make sense for apple to instead a) make macs match the prices of their counterparts

and

b) make macs fully upgradeable with off the shelf parts (aside from the motherboard.. which is possibly where my argument falls down)..

..obviously this would reduce profits..

..but not as much as leasing the OS for the same effect.

[camomac]

i feel like this is one of those NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO moment that there are in films!

me too. i feel like i switched to mac to get away from this crap.
then the intel thing, now this. man. jobs must think that people
like to spend obscene amounts of money, just so they can "be different"
like everybody else.

[amac4me]

Not going to happen. With the recent uptick in Mac sales, Apple would be foolish to take away that momentum.

Regardless, i expect Mac marketshare to reach double digits by the end of the decade. Yes, by 2010, Macs and OS X will see at least 10% marketshare and that will be accomplished without any Mac Clones.

[nagromme]

The bottom line is, both camps are quite correct.

Cloning--or even selling boxed OS X--WOULD bring in a lot of money and new Mac users. No doubt.

AND:

Cloning--or selling boxed OS X--would ALSO cost Apple a lot of money and exact a price. No doubt.

So which is greater? The cost or the benefit?

There are many approaches, including ones we've never thought of, and the landscape is always changing. Maybe the cost/benefit answer won't always be as simple and unchanging as some might think.

Many people assume that ALL cloning scenarios, no matter what the approach, will have a greater cost than benefit. That could be true, but I don't think it's that obvious.

Others are sure Apple has a sure winner if they let other companies have Mac OS X. I don't think that's obvious either.

I'll wait and see what, if anything, Apple cooks up. I doubt they are totally ignoring these questions, but I also doubt that they'll be rushing to decide anything.

[gkarris]

"Apple Support, can I help you?"
"I'm having trouble booting OS X for Intel and getting to the desktop."
"What is your machine?"
"A Dell Dimension 8100 with a Pentium 4 processor"
"I'm sorry, you will need to call Dell for support"
"They don't speak english very well"
"Sorry, I can't help."


Dell is crap - crap parts, support techs don't really speak english. No.
HP - great machines, but had to call support, the new CEO moved tech support to India. No more HP machines here.
IBM - does that come with an eggroll? PCs now in China.

From what I understand, Apple will have tech support in the USA for US customers, and it looks like the Mini is being made here now as well.

If anything, I'm only buying Apple Computers and putting Windows in it when we need to run Windows...

Unless Apple goes the route of Dell, HP, and IBM, 1 computer can run it all (the Intel ones at least).

[nxent]

Unless Apple has very tight control over the design of the computers (which would raise the price anyway, so what would be the advantage?), I don't see this happening. Apple is not ready to become a mass-market commodity yet. They have a nice little niche that they are expanding gradually. They do NOT want to become a Dell (look at Dell's recent earnings and customer satisfaction ratings).

i agree. not only is apple not ready to become a mass market company, i'm not so sure they want to. they take too much pride in being the innovative little guy, mocking the big bruisers' clumsiness. they like being the rebels. while it would be great to see windows fall on it's ass, apple would suddenly become the new 'man'. nontheless, porting osx to pcs would screw microsoft and themselves at the same time (in the long run)...

[LethalWolfe]

If Apple switched to being a "software" company instead of a "hardware" company I think we'd have to see an increase software prices (especially for the pro apps). Selling copies of OS X wouldn't be enough. I think it would be like Windows and Office. IIRC MS actually loses money on Windows, but makes money hand over fist w/Office. Apple does a similar thing now, they offer very good software at very good prices, but you have to buy their hardware (which is where they make their money). If you cut the hardware out of the picture OS X stays as the inexpensive lure, but the burden of generating a profitable revenue falls to the apps (instead of the hardware). Which means things like DVD SP, Shake, FCP, and even iLife will have to go up (probably a significant amount) in cost.

Assuming all this happens it could effect the strong growth Apple's pro apps have had in the past few years. Apple's biggest advantage right now is price. They offer viable alternatives at, typically, significantly lower prices, but if their prices go up that big advantage slips away.


Lethal

[LimeiBook86]

Although this may take money away from Mac hardware sales. It think IF anything were to happen Apple would sell Mac OS X for other PC system companies, such as Dell. I don't think these would really be "Mac Clones", the new Intel compatible Mac OS is all that's needed, I mean maybe Apple would add a special chip or add-in something to make the PCs compatible with the Mac OS. I mean this would restrict the kind of computers that can run the Mac OS but, eventually Apple might open up the Mac OS for all systems (thus killing Windows Vista). It would be nice to see Microsoft fumble, it would be bittersweet...but, honestly I don't see Apple doing this. :p

[mdriftmeyer]

I don't really see what that means. A year ago he said there would be no video iPod. A year later, at the same place, he announces a video iPod. Surely we should expect what he has said "no" to?

iPod is a very select market with a very minimal set of functionality. Adding video, solely under Apple control, doesn't add credence to destroying the uniform coupling of OS X with OS X Hardware.

It won't happen: When you work with Steve and see how vehemently pissed off he gets when this idea keeps surfacing you know the man is serious. Apple is growing because of the uniform marriage of OS X and OS X Hardware. Slowly, consistently the inroads are continuing to climb: one of the most attractive reasons is the consistency customers can expect.

In the Enterprise Space where the markets are just beginning to really get tapped they don't like to deal with being told they will get a controlled and sound system and then to see that go poof just doesn't fly.

If Microsoft started selling Windows Vista PCs they would sell a version for OEMs and a highend version just from Microsoft : ultimately it would **** them over.

You either start with being the OS vendor for 3rd party top to bottom or you are both the OS and main system provider for 3rd party vendors to add value to the products.

You don't switch in mid stride.

[SiliconAddict]

i feel like this is one of those NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO moment that there are in films!

Naa. That was the move to x86. Mwahahahahahaha! :eek:

[gcyc]

How many threads have I seen on PC boards about people OSX-ing their windows... trying to make it look like the real deal.

It will happen eventually, but I don't think Apple is ready. Not yet, anyway. ;)

[mac-er]

As long as Jobs is there.....they won't clone the OS.

It would be dumb. He terminated it because it was eating into high end sales.

Who would by a $1300 iMac when they could get a $300 clone or a $1000 iBook when they could get a $600 clone?

[SiliconAddict]

me too. i feel like i switched to mac to get away from this crap.
then the intel thing, now this. man. jobs must think that people
like to spend obscene amounts of money, just so they can "be different"
like everybody else.


No. Jobs has seen his mortality with his near head on with cancer. He knows he won't be around forever and wants to make HIS company as strong as possible before that happens. I'm almost 100% certain that is what is going on. All of this started soon after his cancer. The whole lets kick some *** in the market share department, the whole Mac Mini thing, the whole lets get tough with people who are leaking our products, etc, etc, etc. It all happened after his cancer. I think Jobs is trying to put Apple in a 20-30% marketshare position so when he retires or dies the company won't be on the edge. Face facts when Apple was jobsless it wasn't making smart choices. What saved Apple was Jobs. If Steve Jobs haven't taken the roll of CEO and lead Apple I'm pretty sure Apple would not be here right now.

[SiliconAddict]

As long as Jobs is there.....they won't clone the OS.

It would be dumb. He terminated it because it was eating into high end sales.

Who would by a $1300 iMac when they could get a $300 clone or a $1000 iBook when they could get a $600 clone?


Hence the reason they won't clone the high end....Mac Minis anyone?

[rlwimi]

After Jobs blew the IBM relationship, Mac clones became an inevitable step in Apple's desktop hardware endgame.

1) Apple begins gimping desktop PPC system so the hot/slow Intel machines don't look ridiculous when they are finally released next year.

1b) iTunes/iTMS/iPods increasingly dominate Apple growth

2) Apple is embarrassed as they release machines that are expensive and have feature sets that are always six months or more behind the rest of the x86 market.

2b) iTunes/iTMS/iPods increasingly dominate Apple growth

3) Running a hacked copy of OS X on cheaper/faster commodity x86 machines becomes the only way for most Mac users to run OS X.

3b) iTunes/iTMS/iPods increasingly dominate Apple growth

4) With lackluster of sales of the always behind and more expensive x86 boxes Apple looks to generate revenue from the lost OS X sales by creating an OEM/stand alone copy

4b) iTunes/iTMS/iPods increasingly dominate Apple growth

5) The Apple branded x86 machine are phased out

5b) iTunes/iTMS/iPods increasingly dominate Apple growth

6) Funding OS X development through iPod revenues no longer is financially feasible. OS X is canned as the company finishes the transformation into a media/media device company.

Anyone who thinks Apple willing is entering the commodity x86 market or that clones "will increase market-share" are living in a fantasy world. Jobs bungling the IBM relationship sealed the fate of Apple computer hardware. Outside of the board of directors demoting Jobs to a lessened position in charge of just the iTMS/iTunes/iPod part of the company and bringing in a grown up who can mend the IBM relationship, the inevitable death of OS X is just a matter of time.

[cryptochrome]

Specifically, clones which serve specialized niches of the market which Apple is not addressing. For instance:

Rugged notebooks suitable for the field
Heavily stripped-down kiosk machines
Thin clients
Supercomputers
iPod-shuffle based devices with novel form factors and purpose (jewelry, waterproof, etc.)

OS X Intel makes this extremely doable, as it can be run on machines built from commodity components. An upgrade to the os to enable multi-head, multi-user, networked/distributed computing would enable this nicely.

[Sun Baked]

Do you really want Apple to sell out to the rest of the PC industry?

Or do you want Apple to drive the PC market forward as a niche player through their own brand of innovation ...

Of course people hate Apple's innovative methods, because it destroys backward compatibility for hardware and software.

But who do you think will force companies to bring PCI express cards to the market faster?

Apple's new dual core PowerMac G5, or the year or more the PC makers have been including these cards in their computers.

[cgundlach]

With the switch to Intel, in particular, I don't see any upside to Apple for clones. Apple will have access to mainstream hardware in order to build their computers. A couple of reasons that a lot of people don't buy macs is 1) they feel that they can't really compare Apples to er, Dells since the hardware is so different 2) fear of lock in. The new Macs should fix both of those problems.

Even though Mac hardware will still be more expensive than a Dell, for instance, won't be a real issue. The iPod is not the cheapest MP3 player. The fact is for most home users, their hardware is already more than they really need. Other factors will come into play, like style, noise, and perceived "coolness". Note that Dell is trying to build a more "exclusive" line.

[Sunrunner]

This would be the best way to kill the brand quality, and the related good name Apple is building for itself.... :(

[Lynxpro]

The PC architecture was incredibly simple. A very small BIOS and an OS that booted off of tape or disk. All the other parts were off the shelf and the graphics and sound were all on ISA cards anyway.


And the IBM PC was an open platform because the company was still suffering from an anti-trust lawsuit from the Justice Department. Otherwise, IBM would not have went to Intel for the microprocessor or farmed out the operating system. Everything would have been in-house. Probably yet another reason why IBM did not buy a 50% stake in Atari Inc. that Warner Communications was offering back in 1980.

[Lynxpro]

Couldn't have said it better myself. Look, Apple markets their HARDWARE to a certain clientele. They are a boutique manufacturer like Alienware or Velocity Micro. They offer a computer that is of higher quality and different than your standard PC. That clientele is not going to go to Dell, they would have bought one in the first place if that was what they wanted. On the other hand, someone might our OS, but also want something a little more conventional, but still high quality and buy from a boutique manufacturer or care more about the drive and get a HP or Dell. We are in no position to judge what another wants for hardware.

Thanks for the props, Ben.

Licensing would also expand OS X into areas of the PC industry that Apple is not interested in. For example, giving a license to Alienware or Falcon Northwest would be a way to increase mind/marketshare for OS X for PC gamers without Apple taking a risk. And considering Jobs thinks media center PCs are doomed, then Apple could license OS X for use in such applications to companies like HP or Sony who actually are interested in those niche markets. All without risk.

Targeted licensing does not mean the local mom&pop screwdriver shop will be making their own Mac clones of dubious quality.

[Lynxpro]

Apple is a 50 billion dollar company.. Microsoft is a 283 billion dollar company.. and yet its only got a three percent or so marketshare.. quite clearly hardware has to be key to their business plan.


Apple is a $50 billion market value company because of the iPod. Microsoft does not have an iPod. Thus your analogy is flawed.

[ender78]

I don't know much about Jonathan Ive but as far as I know, he knows little about chipset design. People need to remember that Apple will be using what may ammount to commodity hardware. Apple's hardware design role will be more limited. Apple is likely to use a stock Intel mobo and modify that package to its own needs. It may be quite easy to build a duplicate of the Macintel box from off the shelf parts. Whatever is invisioned for copy protection will be the only line of defense. Apple can reap significant profits from licensing [charging certain manufactureres $80-200 for rights to manufacture specific licensed hardware].

[Mac Me Up]

1) Apple begins gimping desktop PPC system so the hot/slow Intel machines don't look ridiculous when they are finally released next year.

I think you've missed the boat at point 1. PPC systems are the hot slow ones - I don't think anyone really believes that PPC is better than intel stuff anymore do they? Point in case - I own a powerbook and an intel centrino notebook - and only one of them is good for cooking bacon on. I'll give you a hint, it's not the one with Intel inside.:D

[Performa]

Well, let's hope they get it right this time, if indeed this actually happens. This is inevitable, though, if Apple wants to increase market share. Their biggest obstacle is the high price of their hardware, but, if someone could install OSX on a Dell, then that will blow everything wide open.



There seem to be a lot of "cheap screws" out there.

[bbyrdhouse]

Does anyone here picture Apple as a software company only?

It seems that I remember Jobs saying a couple of years ago that Apple would not become a software company like a Microsoft, but that hardware would always be their main focus.

Of course as another poster pointed out already Steve says one thing and then changes often. Perhaps this is what makes Apple such a unique company.

To change the subject, I sent my Powerbook off for repair on Monday (Superdrive problems) and it came back today.(Fast service) They not only replaced the superdrive but also the screen and the battery all at no cost. That experience with the service dept. alone will keep me buying Apple in the future.

[Lynxpro]

Apple is growing because of the uniform marriage of OS X and OS X Hardware.


Apple is growing because the iPod/iTunes runs on Windows. Don't kid yourself that its because of OS X being locked to Mac hardware. Because that didn't make Apple's stock jump prior to the iPod becoming a success.

Hell, Apple could sell Windows based computers that most consumers would think as teriffic if the iApps came bundled with them.

Its the apps, not OS X. OS X is the side benefit. You think Joe Sixpack gives a rip about BSD underpinnings? Joe Sixpack would run Microsoft Bob if it worked.

[Lynxpro]

Who would by a $1300 iMac when they could get a $300 clone or a $1000 iBook when they could get a $600 clone?

Why do people buy Apple Cinema displays when they could buy cheaper models from the actual manufacturer who produces the product? Or buy the same thing at below cost from Dell?

Why do people buy iPods that have traditionally been more expensive than the competition?

Why do people still buy iBooks/Powerbooks when laptops in PC land have Pentium processors that run laps around the G4?

If I type any more "whys" I'm going to sound like Nancy Kerrigan.

[bbyrdhouse]

Apple is growing because the iPod/iTunes runs on Windows. Don't kid yourself that its because of OS X being locked to Mac hardware. Because that didn't make Apple's stock jump prior to the iPod becoming a success.

Hell, Apple could sell Windows based computers that most consumers would think as teriffic if the iApps came bundled with them.

Its the apps, not OS X. OS X is the side benefit. You think Joe Sixpack gives a rip about BSD underpinnings? Joe Sixpack would run Microsoft Bob if it worked.

Could not have said it any better!

[Sun Baked]

It seems that I remember Jobs saying a couple of years ago that Apple would not become a software company like a Microsoft, but that hardware would always be their main focus.

Of course as another poster pointed out already Steve says one thing and then changes often. Perhaps this is what makes Apple such a unique company.Apple does listen to consumers if the product fits into their strategy.

However, people have also been screaming and yelling for a brand new Newton. :p

Consumers aren't screaming and yelling for clones, it's Dell screaming and yelling for a chunk of Apple's computer hardware profits.

The consumers keep asking Apple for lower priced computers ... not a Dell capable of running OS X.

If they want a Dell running OS X, it better be the one they already own.

[Lynxpro]

6) Funding OS X development through iPod revenues no longer is financially feasible. OS X is canned as the company finishes the transformation into a media/media device company.
Anyone who thinks Apple willing is entering the commodity x86 market or that clones "will increase market-share" are living in a fantasy world. Jobs bungling the IBM relationship sealed the fate of Apple computer hardware. Outside of the board of directors demoting Jobs to a lessened position in charge of just the iTMS/iTunes/iPod part of the company and bringing in a grown up who can mend the IBM relationship, the inevitable death of OS X is just a matter of time.


Apple spends less than $20 million per year on OS X development as it is. Read the financial reports.

Besides, if Apple can't work on it anymore, Google will just buy it up. Google can sneeze $20 million.

[DakotaGuy]

In the future if Apple really wanted to grow their marketshare they would have to open it up for clones again. They have a hard enough time keeping up with production numbers at this time. Cloning again could be very successful in the long term.

Everyone who says it is different this time around is right. Apple would not have any problems getting some of the big players to look at producing a clone once the transition to x86 is complete. The other companies will already then have boxes that will be just like Apple's internally and be ready to run OSX for Intel. I am sure they will come up with some way of making OSX only run on certain, "approved" machines, but the other companies would be very interested in making a clone this time around. Before they would have had to sink a lot of money in developing a PPC computer to run it and now they don't.

Do you really think the only reason Jobs switched to Intel was because they will use less power someday? Yes, that is a good reason, and I am sure their roadmap in the future looks better, but I don' think it is too crazy to think that he has another idea in mind.

Everyone saying that Jobs will never do something after he says the idea bad is wrong. He has done it many times. Flash drive MP3 players were "no good" then comes the Shuffle. Intel is "no good" and soon they will be out. Putting a drive sideways behind the screen in an iMac is a bad idea, then the iMac G5 comes out. CRT is dead and a few months later they released the eMac. It has happened time and time again. Does Jobs have a vision of clones in the future. He might even though he would look at you today and say that is the dumbest idea he ever heard of.

If a company like Sony was to build a clone and it was a good machine and cheaper then the Mac, I would buy one.

[Lynxpro]

But who do you think will force companies to bring PCI express cards to the market faster?


Uhm, newsflash here. Apple was the last computer manufacturer to ship a PCIe capable system. The PC side of the market always has the latest video cards.

[Sun Baked]

Uhm, newsflash here. Apple was the last computer manufacturer to ship a PCIe capable system. The PC side of the market always has the latest video cards.News flash, I'm not talking about video cards ...

In the market for pro audio cards/sata cards/SCSI cards/etc. for your new dual core PowerMac, where are the cards? it's been a long time and Apple is the "last" to switch.

Who will force the market to switch faster, Apple or Dell?

With Dell, there isn't an incentive for these companies to switch quickly, since they have PCI slots for backward compatibility.

[oskar]

Apple is incredibly stronger than ever. Their market share in computers continues to grow even with the many people that think their laptop line is the weakest. It must be because of the iPod, but OS X has been a stong seller for Apple as well.
I find it kind of strange that Apple would allow OS X licensing or mac clones after announcing that they are trying to make the best computers and that that's why they're going to Intel. However if licensing was their ultimate goal, switching to Intel would be a first logical step... so who knows?
I think it would be at least another two years before we get any real updates on any of these moves.

[Lynxpro]

Apple does listen to consumers if the product fits into their strategy.

Yeah....if only they'd listen to the people asking for OGG/FLAC/APE support on the iPods, they'd run iRiver out of business.

You'd think running another (albeit "small") competitor out of the market would be of strategic interest to Apple. Especially when such formats are free/open-source and have no chance of threatening AAC+FairPlay.

[ffakr]

When Apple originially let people clone the Mac, the cloners were making it to market before Apple with faster Chips. Motorola and IBM did not have the capacity (dedicated to PPC) to pump new chip revs out fast enough so that Apple had immediate volume to ship. As a result, the Cloners happily shipped the chips when they started to trickle off the production line.
The Cloners also had more room to differentiate. Motorola Mac clones had PS2 ports.

Apple tried to slow the release of other machines by forcing all hardware to get certified by Apple. This didn't work.. enough. It did, however, ensure that the clones were just as stable as an Apple Mac. The clones didn't fail, the succeeded too much. Apple didn't charge enough licensing to cover R&D so the cloners killed them on price. Apple was hobbled by slow chip roll outs.

So, fast forward to now:
Apple will be buying fully integrated solutions from Intel. Intel will produce the CPU, the chipsets, and the motherboards (most likely the motherboards too unless Apple produces reference designs).
There will be no advantage to the clones in availability as Apple will have 1st tier access to reference designs (they are certainly no smaller than a major 3rd party MB manufacturer like FIC or probably even Asus).
Also, Apple will use Intel's TPM (Trusted Platform Module) to make sure OS X only runs on the machines they want it run on so they can still exert control over the clone release dates. They can also control their components to some small extent.
Apple will likely be more expensive (though the switch to Intel will drastically cut Mac R&D leveling the playing field substatially)

If Apple does produce their own boards from reference designs they can still add value to an Apple Mac. Company Foo might make a cheaper Mac but Apple can make the Intel Reference design that has built in FW and Airport and a super-doohicky-9000.

I think Apple can make a better run at cloning now than before. The situation is different and they've learned from their past mistakes.

I don't think they can simply open up OSX to any PC though. With out the TPM security, it will be way to easy for any PC user to download an OS X Torrent and run it with no license. The only options would be really restrictive registrations of the OS (a huge user hassle that has caused backlash on other packages/OSes) or some other manner to crack down on hackers (like changing reg codes on every update so people would have to reinstall and continually hack the new versions). It would be a huge mess.
I don't doubt that TPM will be hacked. If you give someone the software, they'll break it. It's like hiding a secret in a box, but giving everyone that box to do what they will with it.
Remember, the PC community is much more dis-honest than the Mac community when it comes to software. I don't know anyone who has bought their MS Windows (except when it's shipped on a shrink wrapped computer and my friends always reinstall anyway).

ffakr.

[FaasNat]

So, will Hell freeze over again?

First the iTunes for Windows
Then Mac OS X on Intel
Now the return of the Clones??

Nah.... was a bad idea then, is a bad idea now. Same ol' story: it will cannablize the Apple hardware sales.Just thinking about the statement regarding clones affecting Apple's hardware sales. If there's all this talk about everyone wanting Apple computers and not ugly generic looking computers, why would clones cannibalize Apple hardware sales?

Going on the car analogy thing, everybody may want the BMW over the Volkswagon, but most people may only be able to afford the Volkswagon. Heh, I always chuckle when I see a reference to the car analogy, cuz I would like to be driving a M3, but a Civic is what sits in my garage.

Anyways, the looks of the hardware don't matter too much to me. It sits way under my desk where no one can really see it. For me, it's the OS that runs on the thing that matters.

[w_parietti22]

*Pictures a Dell running Mac OS X*

ack! :eek:


;)

[Lynxpro]

News flash, I'm not talking about video cards ...
In the market for pro audio cards/sata cards/SCSI cards/etc. for your new dual core PowerMac, where are the cards? it's been a long time and Apple is the "last" to switch.
Who will force the market to switch faster, Apple or Dell?
With Dell, there isn't an incentive for these companies to switch quickly, since they have PCI slots for backward compatibility.


There aren't enough computers (period) amongst the installed user base with PCIe support to merit any of the companies into abandoning PCI in favor of PCIe for anything but videocards. Look back to how long it took to kill off ISA. That was a good 6+ years since the introduction of PCI.

Its all about installed base. Not Apple joining the fold.

And you cannot even use the USB analogy from the original iMac because it would take ALL Apple Macs to have open PCIe slots to create such a spark. Do you see open PCIe slots on the Mac Mini or the iMac?

[pmoeser]

I predict a strategic alliance with Sony and a VIAO with OS X first.
I have had that very discussion with friends over here.
Sony make the best looking pc laptops
Apple make the best laptops and OS
If Apple wanted to extend their hardware reach, at least Sony can make it look good.
It would also expand other opportunities if Sony were to buy/invest in Apple: Sony getting a hold of the portable music player market again
Apple getting the full catalogue of SonyBMG worldwide
SonyEriccsonApple Mobile phone
AppleSony media centres for the home
Think about it
Think different
It makes some sense

[nghtstr]

Doesn't make any real sense with the switch to x86. If Apple wants, it can just allow OSX to be run on any PC. Why bother licensing the hardware? Just go for the software sales to existing PC owners.

The problem with that is that Apple doesn't enjoy the market share needed to do an all-software position right now. They don't have the number of applications out there yet, and people would not want to install a brand new OS on their existing machines.

Also, couple with the fact of just what kind of hardware are you going to allow to be used?? Microsoft has been trying to deal with issue for the past 15+ years. They haven't been able to get it right yet. (Side note: i don't think the WANT to get it right, but that is a different discussion).

So, as much as I want to see the Mac OS X running on my Athalon 2800+ that I have, I don't think that it is a wise decision to make. I'll keep it on my iMac G5. :)

[Sun Baked]

There aren't enough computers (period) amongst the installed user base with PCIe support to merit any of the companies into abandoning PCI in favor of PCIe for anything but videocards. Look back to how long it took to kill off ISA. That was a good 6+ years since the introduction of PCI.

Its all about installed base. Not Apple joining the fold.

And you cannot even use the USB analogy from the original iMac because it would take ALL Apple Macs to have open PCIe slots to create such a spark. Do you see open PCIe slots on the Mac Mini or the iMac?Actually Apple did kill off PCI support for all their machines going forward.

Many of the pro-tool/card markets are quickly announcing upgrades to PCI-Express to accomodate the new machines -- or basically they are eliminating Apple users as customers in the future.

PC makers continually accomodate older technologies to make people happy -- Apple usually doesn't.

It's not always about installed base, sometimes it's about keeping a niche market segment as a customer.

[FaasNat]

It didn't capture a significant portion of new user sales like everyone thought it would.

All the cheap Mac clones did was sell cheap Mac clones to current Mac users, decimating Apple hardware sales.

The growth of new Mac users at the time wasn't too significant, making the clones a major disaster.I think maybe Apple should've gather from this that maybe people don't need great looking Apple quality computers, but cheaper clones that run the Mac OS is satisfactory.

I like the idea of having clones. As long as Apple plays it right and doesn't lose all of their revenue to the clones. Oh, and that the clonse are priced much lower -- wouldn't do any good if they're the same prices as the Apple systems. On a very limited budget and can't afford the nice PowerMacs (the Mini and iMac don't do it for me -- would like to upgrade my video card eventually and have a PCI based TV tuner card that I use).

[JRM PowerPod]

I have had that very discussion with friends over here.
Sony make the best looking pc laptops
Apple make the best laptops and OS
If Apple wanted to extend their hardware reach, at least Sony can make it look good.
It would also expand other opportunities if Sony were to buy/invest in Apple: Sony getting a hold of the portable music player market again
Apple getting the full catalogue of SonyBMG worldwide
SonyEriccsonApple Mobile phone
AppleSony media centres for the home
Think about it
Think different
It makes some sense

It would be a marvellous day, as my two favourite companies would be teaming up to destroy microsoft.

It would be brilliant

brilliant indeed

[FaasNat]

[...]
Companies survive off of profit, not margins. 50% margins on a $100 product is not as profitable as 30% margins on a $3000 product.
[...]
Unless they sold 19 of the $100 product to every 1 of the $3000 product. :D

[Lynxpro]

Actually Apple did kill off PCI support for all their machines going forward.

I said for Apple to ship all their machines with PCIe support. Not simply killing off PCI.

Apple killed non-USB legacy ports in 1997. The PC industry still ships PCs with PS/2 ports in 2005.

So your analogy is moot when it comes to Apple's influence in killing off legacy tech for the "next big thing". Some PCs still have floppy drives installed.

[Lynxpro]

I have had that very discussion with friends over here.
Sony make the best looking pc laptops
Apple make the best laptops and OS
If Apple wanted to extend their hardware reach, at least Sony can make it look good.
It would also expand other opportunities if Sony were to buy/invest in Apple: Sony getting a hold of the portable music player market again
Apple getting the full catalogue of SonyBMG worldwide
SonyEriccsonApple Mobile phone
AppleSony media centres for the home
Think about it
Think different
It makes some sense


SonyBMG Music is co-owned with Bertlesman. So just because Apple would become a Sony subsidiary does not mean it being granted the entire SonyBMG catalog.

AOL didn't exactly prosper under TimeWarner's mismanagement. They never even got an exclusive ISP agreement with sister company TimeWarner Cable.

WarnerMusic was such a pain in the ass that TimeWarner sold it off to the private investment group headed by that moron Edgar Bronfman.

[FaasNat]

They should expand the gaming market. All that great hardware, and no games utilize it. where can i get a mac version of FFXI?Yeah, I agree. I think having more of the games available for the Mac would help with marketshare. All of my friends won't buy a Mac because there aren't Mac versions available of the games they're playing and would like to play.

[EricNau]

PLEASE NOOOOOOOO!!!! AHHHHHH!!!
-Apple wouldn't do this to me, would they?

[FaasNat]

Why do people buy Apple Cinema displays when they could buy cheaper models from the actual manufacturer who produces the product? Or buy the same thing at below cost from Dell?Beats me... :rolleyes:

Why do people buy iPods that have traditionally been more expensive than the competition?Well, from the people I know who have iPods that previously had other MP3 players, the interface is nicer, smoother, etc. etc. compared to their old players. I don't think it mattered to them what the underlying hardware was or who made it.

Why do people still buy iBooks/Powerbooks when laptops in PC land have Pentium processors that run laps around the G4?Well.... currently, Pentium based laptops don't run Mac OS X, which is the best OS out there to run :D.

[Sun Baked]

I said for Apple to ship all their machines with PCIe support. Not simply killing off PCI.

Apple killed non-USB legacy ports in 1997. The PC industry still ships PCs with PS/2 ports in 2005.

So your analogy is moot when it comes to Apple's influence in killing off legacy tech for the "next big thing". Some PCs still have floppy drives installed.And you just keep proving how innovative the PC market is.

They're motto is backward compatibility.

First thing clone maker would do to a Mac, is add a PCI slot to Apple's reference design.

Innovation is about driving things forward, and Dell is still driving backwards.

[fatfish]

Obviously, someone at silicon.com has left the keys out for the drinks cabinet.

[MacSlut]

I could see Apple licensing to Dell and HP. A few things have changed since the last time.

One is that a vendor would only have to license the OS, no full motherboard licensing required or hardware issues. Dell/HP could build as usual and then have OS X and a BTO option. Heck, they could offer Windows *and* OS X as an option.

There are some interesting Apple patents in regards to the possibility of being able to run multiple OSs at the same time, which would totally rock.

So this would be *much* easier and inexpensive for the major vendors. Also, Apple makes more money now by selling OS upgrades, iLife and other software, as well as iPods, music downloads, video downloads, Airports, iSights, etc...

If a person was going to buy a Dell, and on check out see that they have a $50-$100 option to buy it with OS X, who loses?

And of course for special promos, Dell could include iLife or other bundling.

This is much different from some bit player making a huge investment in going in as a Mac cloner.

[Claymore]

Couldn't apple sell some kind of a usb dongel or something, to control which pc's os x is installed on

[EricNau]

If this is true (and I hope it's not) I would expect Apple to limit to only one vendor, and put strict guidelines for the hardware, that the manufacturer would have to follow.
I don't think it would be a BTO option, I would expect it would be its own line of computers.
But what would be the point, if they don't like Apple computers, why would they buy a "PC" with OS X on it? What would be the difference between a Powermac, and some "PC" made by dell running OS X? Cheaper maybe? :confused:

[rlwimi]

Apple spends less than $20 million per year on OS X development as it is. Read the financial reports.

Besides, if Apple can't work on it anymore, Google will just buy it up. Google can sneeze $20 million.

Uh, no...but that was funny someone would think that Apple could spend only 20 million a year on OS X.

OS X was a walking corpse of an OS the day IBM dumped Apple as a customer. Apple is internally preparing to be post OS X company media company.

[iMeowbot]

Couldn't apple sell some kind of a usb dongel or something, to control which pc's os x is installed on
They do have one already, the XSkey for Logic.

[egor]

Apple is a $50 billion market value company because of the iPod. Microsoft does not have an iPod. Thus your analogy is flawed.

Uhh, what? I didn't think I'd have to state the obvious but..

The estimated gross margins on iPods in the last quarter was 22%.. compared to more than an average of 28% on apple computers..

.."Apple shipped 1,236,000 Macintosh® units and 6,451,000 iPods" during the last quarter..

..the "analogy" still stands.

[EricNau]

I don't get it.
The main reason why people don't buy Mac is because of the OS (I've never heard anyone say they don't like Apple Hardware).
Everyone I know loves the hardware of Apple, just not the OS (mostly because it isn't as compatible as Windows).
Putting OS X on a Dell wouldn't change any of this, would it? It would still be the same OS, just on a cheaper "piece of junk."
Correct me if Im wrong, but putting OS X on a PC wouldn't suddenly make everything compatible with it.

[Dr. No]

Couldn't apple sell some kind of a usb dongel or something, to control which pc's os x is installed on


You mean a USB key? That might work.
I believe LightWave used to have this.

[Dr. No]

...or heck, why not a PCI (or PCIe) card with a TPM chip on it???? :D

[rendezvouscp]

Couldn't apple sell some kind of a usb dongel or something, to control which pc's os x is installed on

Is there a way for hackers to get around USB dongles? I really don't know, but for Macs it would be a good idea to just build in a USB dongle that connects itself upon startup (but perhaps hackers could just get around this).
-Chase

[generik]

Why buy an inferior Chinese x86 clone in Mac clothing, when you can have the real thing...

Erm.. my PB and iPod ARE Chinese you insensitive clod!

[homerjward]

Is there a way for hackers to get around USB dongles? I really don't know, but for Macs it would be a good idea to just build in a USB dongle that connects itself upon startup (but perhaps hackers could just get around this).
-Chase
lightwave's is not hard to crack, or at least i wouldn't think based on how many friends i have with pirated copies :rolleyes:
also, what about schools? my school has some like network install version of lightwave that doesnt use a dongle (it'd get stolen) but then how would they stop someone from stealing the disk image or w/e?

[lolex]

I don't see any chance this could happens while Steve Jobs still remains as Apple CEO.

Jobs said -
-he hate there are some people that he can't fire when things go wrong.-
-Microsoft has made the major killing ever in the computer history-

What he's been doing for years is to make a purer Mac among the messy pc market. That's why he won, comeback, and wins again.

While priacy still haunting software makers, clone anything out just cause backfire on itself, you'll lose more while expecting your victory.

Asking why the OS X 's made to run on intel platform, this may connects to the point that the technologies of powerpc chips doesn't growing fast enough as Intel does.

I just like the purity of Mac , pls don't mess it bad.

[lolex]

I have had that very discussion with friends over here.
Sony make the best looking pc laptops
Apple make the best laptops and OS
If Apple wanted to extend their hardware reach, at least Sony can make it look good.
It would also expand other opportunities if Sony were to buy/invest in Apple: Sony getting a hold of the portable music player market again
Apple getting the full catalogue of SonyBMG worldwide
SonyEriccsonApple Mobile phone
AppleSony media centres for the home
Think about it
Think different
It makes some sense

Sony was hit very hard by Apple on Mp3 players and notebook markets,
A few years backward, Sony's supposed to produce the most advanced and good looking gadgets, however, as ipods and powerbooks debut and overwheming the market for it's simple and elegant design, Sony fades out too quick and uncapable to catch up,

when Jobs asked by the press any comments of future products,

"Noooooo !!, we gonna be careful, we have those Sony guys over the street with their binoculars .." Jobs let out a cunning smile.

[iMeowbot]

Is there a way for hackers to get around USB dongles? I really don't know, but for Macs it would be a good idea to just build in a USB dongle that connects itself upon startup (but perhaps hackers could just get around this).
Some dongles are better than others. I think that Logic Pro is still uncracked.

[rendezvouscp]

Some dongles are better than others. I think that Logic Pro is still uncracked.

Logic Pro-like dongle + command in the OS X Intel startup to mechanically connect the dongle to an internal USB port + laser sensors to verify = what sounds like an uncrackable system.

I really don't care how elitist it sounds, but I hope that Apple makes OS X Intel uncrackable without harming the true Mac user.
-Chase

[LethalWolfe]

Just another 3 cents.

1. Market share, by itself, is not a good indicator of the health of a company. I don't know if it's still true, but for a while Apple and Dell were the only profit making personal computer companies. And, IIRC, Macs had their highest market share during the clone years, but Apple, as a company, almost bit the dust. I care more about Apple being a healthy, productive company than about how much market share Apple has.

2. About Jobs flip-flopping (like w/flash based players and portable video). There is a difference between having "no comment" or deflecting a question about a still secret product in development and radically changing Apple's business model (going from a hardware to a software company). I wouldn't use Jobs' down playing video-on-iPod abilities to deduce that he's also lying about some fundamental aspects of Apple as a company.

3. Dongles. Yes, Dongles can be cracked. There are dongle cracks all over the place for things like Avid's Xpress line of software.


Lethal

[puuukeey]

Heres why I don't agree with the majority here. basically what we have to work off of is microsoft. people feel that their computer will be less compatible with its software if apple liscences their OS because they see microsoft getting bogged down working with 800 pc manufacurers to get everything working . This is simply not true. apple makes MACS!!! if apple were to passively say, " you want our source code? fine" the macintosh would not go away, and apple would NOT have to pander to pc manufacturers because simply put, they are one and microsoft is not.

apples downfall is it's exclusivity. I've said it on this list a million times, an OS is like a government. apple chooses to force people to use its applications and it's os JUST THE WAY THEY WANT YOU TOO!! I feel the more wise (and admittedly less flashy) way to go is to facilitate innovation on your platform.

communism vs republic.

-matt

[slooksterPSV]

I find one problem with doing clones. People will start the claims that "their mac is faster than yours" because they bought it from a certain company. I purchased an off brand AMD Duron computer that was 1.1 GHz, 384MB of RAM, etc. etc. and me and my brother went in on a Compaq Presario NX5000S??? 2.5GHz Intel Celeron, 640MB RAM but guess who beats who? Yup, my AMD Computer. 64KB L1 Cache + 128KB L2 Cache (AMD) vs. (INTEL) 12KB + 20KB L1 Cache + 128KB L2 Cache.

[shyataroo]

Lets see is it profitable for a PC developer to make games for mac? 4% of the market has a mac and of that 4% only about 40% play games on it and of those 40% only 20% have powerful enough G4's (this is my guess)

[stelriah]

That's one of the main reasons I just can't see it happening. Could you imagine Jobs doing a demo of a new App on a Dell LCD? Nothing against their LCD's, but they just don't come near to the beauty of an Apple one.

its the same lcd. both are made by philips. i bought one for my mac mini and the look bothered me for all of 5 minutes. screw the look.

[mjstew33]

Imagine OSX running on one of these (http://www.alienware.com/product_detail_pages/Area-51_7500/area-51_7500_features.aspx?SysCode=PC-AREA51-7500-R1&SubCode=SKU-DEFAULT).
hopefully that will become a reality ;) :cool:

[EricNau]

I've asked before, no one answered, and I am very curious...
I don't get it.
The main reason why people don't buy Mac is because of the OS (I've never heard anyone say they don't like Apple Hardware).
Everyone I know loves the hardware of Apple, just not the OS (mostly because it isn't as compatible as Windows).
Putting OS X on a Dell wouldn't change any of this, would it? It would still be the same OS, just on a cheaper "piece of junk."
Correct me if Im wrong, but putting OS X on a PC wouldn't suddenly make everything compatible with it.

[millar876]

i bont see any problems with clones, my Dad still uses a UMAX Apus (PPC 601ev @180MHz) that we got in a bundle with a monitor, epsonstylus color 300 printer and a flatbed scanner and an ext 1GB hdd for £700 uk, when an equivelant apple base unit(tower one i think) alone was about the same price. its running os 9.1 (i think) has maxed out ram and an external adb modem (56k) and it still dose him fine.

so it this day and age (well when mactels are out) a cheaper "mac" albeit a clone could tempt people to the light side. As everything would still run, and the supported chipsets would be limited (by drivers or lack of in the install) Apple would still have a high degree of controll. I dont think steve woukld let his baby ron too far away, unlike bad uncle Gill

[JesterJJZ]

Who cares? I won't be buying them.

[LethalWolfe]

I don't get it.
The main reason why people don't buy Mac is because of the OS (I've never heard anyone say they don't like Apple Hardware).
Everyone I know loves the hardware of Apple, just not the OS (mostly because it isn't as compatible as Windows).
Putting OS X on a Dell wouldn't change any of this, would it? It would still be the same OS, just on a cheaper "piece of junk."
Correct me if Im wrong, but putting OS X on a PC wouldn't suddenly make everything compatible with it.

Most of the grumblings I see at PC sites is that Macs cost too much. Of course after the Mini came out I read about a lot of people buying them 'cause they are so cheap. Also people didn't like the fact that you can't tweak Macs like you can PCs (few component makers and such), but that's more of a PC enthusiast's gripe, not a Joe Sixpack gripe. And you are correct that putting OS X on a PC wouldn't magically make it run Windows programs.


Lethal

[Project]

If it was to happen, I cant see them approaching the likes of Dell and others. Perhaps just a single vendor, like they did with iPod HP.... maybe Sony... who can come close to matching the same design aesthetics Apple bases itself on... to keep the brand value high... Jobs has often voiced his admiration for Sony... so it could be a good move.

Licensing it to any other vendor would cheapen the brand IMO. And the brand is very important. Keep it to one vendor and you can still tightly control the hardware configuration/software... plus Sony are hardly likely to underprice Apple products... the competition between both sides would keep Apple on its toes too...

[Moonboots]

I like my iMac , but i certainly wouldn't mind my " butt ugly " PC , or clone for that matter , running os x . There is not conflict in my mind.

[Marx55]

Certainly would be nice to increase market share to 20-30%! Unfortunately it is a little more complicated than that. I can certainly see Apple licensing Mac OS X to a few partners, but not release a universal x86 version. One of the reasons OS X works so well is that Apple controls the whole box. With just a few partners, perhaps one or two, Apple can still control the whole box and keep variations and potential bugs to a minimum thereby stopping the OS X experience from being as buggy as Windows. If there was the clout of an HP or Dell behind Apple then the OS X market share would increase rapidly. People are scared of being locked into Apple's hardware.

That is a good start to boost market share!

[Azurael]

I like my PowerCenter Pro... Very reliable to date, in fact it even runs Tiger usably with the G4 upgrade and lots of ram. Nothing wrong with the clones in those days beside the fact that they were ugly. It looks like a Dull!

[giveup]

My view is: If OS X even runs in a PC, it is a good news. All my PC friends would be capable of video chatting together in MAC platform. everything is going to change, hardware making, software developing.
If you ask me whether buy a Mac in that case, i would say yes because Mac is one of best computer. Consumers would have another option to run OS X by buying from other PC maker for price, design, quality compromising.
It would be a better world.

[Dale Cooper]

This sounds bad.

[giveup]

I don't get it.
The main reason why people don't buy Mac is because of the OS (I've never heard anyone say they don't like Apple Hardware).
Everyone I know loves the hardware of Apple, just not the OS (mostly because it isn't as compatible as Windows).
Putting OS X on a Dell wouldn't change any of this, would it? It would still be the same OS, just on a cheaper "piece of junk."
Correct me if Im wrong, but putting OS X on a PC wouldn't suddenly make everything compatible with it.

You're probably right, "All my friend have got a PC, I would be not able to communicate with them if I had a Mac." "My law school software is not compatible with MAC" "Microsoft Project doesn't runs at MAC"
But, popular stuff are not always best stuff.
If OS X is becoming major platform for origin Windows user, it would be not hard to see software developer is working on Mac platform.

[NickFalk]

Sorry if this has already been brought up, but I certainly believe Apple will allow clones eventually. Heck, they might even move into a "software only" company in a few years time. (Well they'll probably still make iPods though). :p

I actually made this (http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=131114) post earlier this year. For those of you who can't be bothered to look it up, here's my "possible roadmap to Apple becomming a software only company:"

1.) 2007: Apple completes the Intel Switch. CPU sales are better than ever, a lot of windows-geeks buy a mac just for the fun of it, knowing they'll be able to install Windows on the great looking box, even if they never get their head around OSX…

2.) 2008-2009: Apple's sales flatten out at around 5-6% of the total market.

3.) 2009-2010: Apple buy a reasonably sized WinPC vendor, allowing this company to make Mac-compatible PC's at the lower end and at a lower cost. This works a charm, further increasing OSX's market-penetration.

4.) 2011-2012: Apple sign a deal with one or two high-profile PC-vendors (SONY? HP?) The companies will start selling Mac-compatible computers.

5.) 2012-2013: Apple's market share is blossoming, and Apple decides to offer "Mac-compatible licenses" to anyone interested.

The following price-war leads to Apple no longer being able to compete in the hardware market. The company decides to scrap it's hardware-division, as licences is by now a big, fat cash-cow…

[lopresmb]

As long as Steve Jobs is CEO there will be no clones. It goes against everything he says about an integrated package designed by one company.

If anything gets licensed it will be a product (like the Moto phones) that both enhances public awareness of Apple and does not compete with any existing or planned Apple product.
I tend to agree with you, Steve was the one to kill to original program to begin with. Why allow yourself to relive a painful part of your history that didn't work beforehand.

But it all comes down to marketshare, if you can do it and allow yourself (or at that point your OS) to remain competitive and making money go for it.

But at this point the majority of Apple profit comes from hardware sales (and ipod sales). If you let people put out cheaper parts hardware (for less money) then you are going to lose tons of money.

[BenRoethig]

Apple will never become a software only company. They offer something different than the usual PC towers. If anything, I could see a rise to around 6-8% of the market due to the higher quality of the machines and unique designs. Apple can never be HP or Dell, but they'll always be Apple.

[BenRoethig]

I tend to agree with you, Steve was the one to kill to original program to begin with. Why allow yourself to relive a painful part of your history that didn't work beforehand.

You mean Apple is going to put out an OS not much better than windows, build the same computers as the wintel makers, and put on a clinic on how not to license your operating system? A lot has changed since 1995. Apple in those days wasn't very innovative and pretty poorly run. They only allowed small companies or those that had never made personal computers before to license the OS. If it wasn't for the clones, some of those users might be running windows right now. Apple's offerings just plain sucked.

[EricNau]

Most of the grumblings I see at PC sites is that Macs cost too much. Of course after the Mini came out I read about a lot of people buying them 'cause they are so cheap. Also people didn't like the fact that you can't tweak Macs like you can PCs (few component makers and such), but that's more of a PC enthusiast's gripe, not a Joe Sixpack gripe. And you are correct that putting OS X on a PC wouldn't magically make it run Windows programs.


Lethal
Correct me if I'm wrong, but putting OS X on a PC wouldn't let it be compatible with 3rd party components either (like graphics cards, etc).
By making a Mac "Clone" the consumer would be buying an uglier version of the Macs already out there, the look would really be the only difference.

I know a lot of people gripe about how expensive Apple Computers are, but really it isn't true, when I've compared prices, they are always within $100 of each other. The main difference is that Apple doesn't make low-end computers.
And how much to windows users spend to get their computers repaired?? Even if your Mac had a problem, any repair at an Apple store that takes less that 30 minutes is free (and most problems on a Mac can be fixed that fast).

[BenRoethig]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but putting OS X on a PC wouldn't let it be compatible with 3rd party components either (like graphics cards, etc).
By making a Mac "Clone" the consumer would be buying an uglier version of the Macs already out there, the look would really be the only difference.


The intel developer boxes are compatible with off the shelf video cards. It's a matter of having no drivers like most of the hardware we don't see on the mac. The only graphics drivers available for OSX86 are for intel GMA900 shared graphics. If more than 5% of the market were running Mac OS X, many companies would rethink their mac support. The exceptions are sound cards and game devices were Apple hasn't made it easy to use them.

[EricNau]

The intel developer boxes are compatible with off the shelf video cards. It's a matter of having no drivers like most of the hardware we don't see on the mac. The only graphics drivers available for OSX86 are for intel GMA900 shared graphics. If more than 5% of the market were running Mac OS X, many companies would rethink their mac support. The exceptions are sound cards and game devices were Apple hasn't made it easy to use them.
I'm just worried if people buy a Dell running OS X they are going to expect it to be as compatible. - Maybe the new Intels will be just as compatible.

[BenRoethig]

I'm just worried if people buy a Dell running OS X they are going to expect it to be as compatible. - Maybe the new Intels will be just as compatible.

If Dell and/or HP announce that they're going to license OS X, things will get compatible in a hurry. It would be in their financial interest to make sure everything works on both windows and OS X.

[RoxStrongo]

i would hate to see a return of the clones (get me george lucas!!) as the reason the mac is such a pleasure to use is that because apple have complete control over the hardware and software everything can be optimised properly and you never find yourself missing a driver. its the same principle with the ipod, a perfect match of hardware and software.

[bigwig]

If Dell and/or HP announce that they're going to license OS X, things will get compatible in a hurry. It would be in their financial interest to make sure everything works on both windows and OS X.
Once Microsoft starts grumbling about the bad things that might happen when their OEM Windows contract expires they'll dump OSX in a heartbeat, much like Dell dropped Linux support. Dell pulled the same stunt with AMD, as I recall: signed a big contract and then immediately dropped it once Intel came around. Any big vendor who signed on for OSX likely does so for leverage against Microsoft, rather than any good-faith effort to sell new and interesting product. That's probably the real reason Jobs won't sell OSX.

[BenRoethig]

And watch them get split into about three different companies the next day. That would be a textbook violation of U.S. federal anti-trust laws.

[PureMac]

Latest torrent with OSx86 10.4.3 has just been installed on a Pentium 4 PC.
Someone says it runs "fast and smooth". Some PC apps have been installed too.
Check these pics:
http://img496.imageshack.us/img496/7550/11201469981uj.jpg
http://img496.imageshack.us/img496/4958/dsc93098ce3na.jpg
It'll work on any machine. Poor Jobs. He's has been trying to convince young people to switch from PCs to Macs, and now everyone will have his cheap PC with a "free" MacOS:D
Have fun, and "carpe diem".

[markjanet]

Why don't they license only the OSX version that works on PPC processors. That way, they would have the hardware advantage (X86) so they could still sell hardware, but they could make $ off the OS as well.

[Atlasland]

http://img496.imageshack.us/img496/4958/dsc93098ce3na.jpg


Good God

[Dr. No]

(off topic)

Azurael-

I have a question about your signature. You say that you have a Yosemite G3 in a standard ATX case...

How exactly did you get it in there?? And what power supply is it using???

Plus, does OS X recognize the 5200 PCI card?

[MyLeftNut]

The major problem with parcelling out manufacturing to third parties is the whole point of Apple at the moment: innovation. They MUST have total control over both the hardware and software to be able to keep up the level of new developments and ideas. If third parties are involved they will simply fight with the development teams on basis of price considerations et al and the **** will hit the fan.

I can see Apple maintaining the hardware for a long while yet. I would'nt be surprised though if a lot of Apples software gets the push to Windows to further push the point of the Apple gear. Maybe even sell Aperture etc to Windows users...would make sense to me...

Anyway, when people see the new Mactels...they'll be creaming their pants..hehe:p

[generik]

Good God

What's wrong with that? I saw a machine that is why cooler than an Apple PM can ever aspire to be :rolleyes:

[bretm]

Clones aren't built in your garage, but they have the same frankensteined mentality. But with the Mac mini, does Apple need clones?

Frankensteined? PowerComputing was consistently a better / faster machine than it's mac counterpart. Better graphics card, faster processor, better cd-rom. That was one of the best computer manufacturers around before steve put a stop to it. They actaully released the G3 before apple! Actually I don't think any shipped. They were manufactured and ready to go when Apple put a stop to their license. Actually, Apple purchased the license back from them as it still had a few years to go. Apple made them a sweet deal to discontinue operations. But their computers were top notch from the ground up. They had online sales down pat. They had the packaging all cool looking. Their mice and their keyboards were much better too.

The clones were damn good. And they were cheap. That was the problem.

Apple used to have this special hardware software integrated box, but since their machines now are essentially the same as windows boxes, I don't think that's the issue. We've switched to ata, usb2, and standard graphics cards and connectors. Even two button mice. Now we're going to switch to standard motherboards. The fat binaries are what is going to make the hardware integration thing a non-issue.

[synp]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but putting OS X on a PC wouldn't let it be compatible with 3rd party components either (like graphics cards, etc).
By making a Mac "Clone" the consumer would be buying an uglier version of the Macs already out there, the look would really be the only difference.


Not exactly. By licensing Mac OS X to, say, Dell, Apple can allow the consumer to buy the Mac that Apple can't make a profit on. I mean a beige box with mediocre parts and a 2.4 GHz P4 and 500 MB of DDR memory.

This kind of machine is a very good seller, because it can do everything most people need. Such a machine would even run Aperture and Photoshop well. Apple doesn't make it because it can't make a profit on it. Instead it sells novelty items like the iMac and mini. Dell can and does make a profit on such machines.

Apple could tell Dell what kind of machines it can sell, and it can dictate some kind of differentiator from other Dell products such as color.

[Will_reed]

In my opinion allowing mac clones will do nothing more than nearly destroy apples hardware development. With cheap machines available from say dell alot less people will purchase a genuine macintosh. For someone like me who loves apples hardware I don't want to see this happen.

those pics don't really prove much the shot is too blurry to see the specs of the machine and if you think about it there could just be a mac mini hiding out of camera that the screen is plugged into.
I made a pretty convincing pic of my own of my asus laptop. I just took a screen shot off my mac in the correct resolution and put it in slideshow mode. A video would be better.

[BenRoethig]

The major problem with parcelling out manufacturing to third parties is the whole point of Apple at the moment: innovation. They MUST have total control over both the hardware and software to be able to keep up the level of new developments and ideas. If third parties are involved they will simply fight with the development teams on basis of price considerations et al and the **** will hit the fan.

I can see Apple maintaining the hardware for a long while yet. I would'nt be surprised though if a lot of Apples software gets the push to Windows to further push the point of the Apple gear. Maybe even sell Aperture etc to Windows users...would make sense to me...

Anyway, when people see the new Mactels...they'll be creaming their pants..hehe:p

Try thinking of Apple the hardware company as a separate entity from the Mac OS X operating system. Apple and the mainstream PC manufacturers are on two distinctly different hardware tracks. While Apple's designs no not appeal to most, Mac OS X the operating system has universal appeal. For the most part the current windows crowd will buy the towers and the Mac crowd will buy what Apple sells. Why? Because its what they like and what fits their needs.

[Bonte]

osX will eventually support all PC's with the label "Made for osX" or something similar, Apple is going to be huge in the next few years. :D

[EricNau]

osX will eventually support all PC's with the label "Made for osX" or something similar, Apple is going to be huge in the next few years. :D
I don't think computers will ever say "Made for OS X" - that's what software should say.
I think the computers would be more likely to say something like "Mac OS X Edition"

But you are right, Apple will be huge in the next few years!
(But I still don't think they should make OS X available for anything but an Apple Computer.)

[nateko]

For the record I hope licencing OSX to 3rd parties doesn't happen.

I got into this late so I don't know if anyone else nentioned this..... If Apple was to do this now is the time. The transition to x86 chips, MS Vista a year off, Apple at an all time high with mass appeal due to the Ipod, the promise of no virus's to tired XP users, yada yada yada.

I don't know of a better time to do it.

[LethalWolfe]

Not exactly. By licensing Mac OS X to, say, Dell, Apple can allow the consumer to buy the Mac that Apple can't make a profit on. I mean a beige box with mediocre parts and a 2.4 GHz P4 and 500 MB of DDR memory.

This kind of machine is a very good seller, because it can do everything most people need. Such a machine would even run Aperture and Photoshop well. Apple doesn't make it because it can't make a profit on it. Instead it sells novelty items like the iMac and mini. Dell can and does make a profit on such machines.
So a sucky Dell is a good buy but the mini and the iMac are novelties?:rolleyes: And "most people" are gonna shell out for Aperture (which won't run on less than a gig of RAM) and/or Photoshop (which I wouldn't say runs "well" on only a half gig of RAM)?

I don't think Dell doesn't make a profit on it's crappy, $499 barebones systems. I think they make a profit when people upgrade the crappy, $499 barebones systems by 2 or 300 dollars.

Apple could tell Dell what kind of machines it can sell, and it can dictate some kind of differentiator from other Dell products such as color.
How much money do you think would Apple have to charge Dell for an OS X license in order to offset the lost hardware sales to Dell? Keep in mind the fact that Apple's hardware sales, not software sales, keep it in business. Speaking of software, the Dell would most likely come w/iLife so besides possible paid upgrades in the future how would Apple earn revenue from Joe Sixpack who just purchased a MacDell?


Lethal

[BenRoethig]

Apple wouldn't lose sales to Dell. The sales which would go to Dell with Mac OS X are already lost: i.e. current windows users and Mac users who have a windows PC as a second computer. In the end having OSX as a viable operating system will allow Apple proper to sell more computers.

[LethalWolfe]

Apple wouldn't lose sales to Dell. The sales which would go to Dell with Mac OS X are already lost: i.e. current windows users and Mac users who have a windows PC as a second computer.
Your logic is flawed because you are making an unlike comparison (windows machines vs mac machines). If I say, "I want to have Windows" I'm not a potential Apple customer just like if I say, "I want to have OS X" I'm not a potential Dell customer. But if Dell starts selling computers w/OS X, and I want a computer w/OS X, I have a choice between buying from Apple or buying a Dell.

If Dell offered hardware comparable to the Mac Mini or iMac but for, let's say, 10% less you don't think that people looking for a new Mac might purchase from Dell rather than Apple?

For another hypothetical example let's look at the education market. Apple can't match Dell as far price-per-machine is concerned, but Apple can stress the security of OS X which means lower long term IT costs. But what happens if Dell now offers OS X machines. Schools buying from Dell get the lower price-per-machine as well as the lower long term IT costs OS X can provide. What is the incentive to buy from Apple?

As long as Apple is a hardware company I don't see them allowing other companies to create clones that will cannibalize their hardware sales.


Lethal

[Psychic Shopper]

Now would be a perfect time to license a PPC clone maker. They could sell cheap PCs and not go after Apples market. Apple fans would want the faster intel chips. The clones were meant to expand market share, instead all the clone makers were going after Apple's customers.

[Sun Baked]

Now would be a perfect time to license a PPC clone maker. They could sell cheap PCs and not go after Apples market. Apple fans would want the faster intel chips. The clones were meant to expand market share, instead all the clone makers were going after Apple's customers.Actually the PPC clones didn't die when Windows and the Mac OS were pulled from their OS option list.

They are now Linux PPCs (G3/G4), while the G5 should have been the next step in their evolution, very few companies are selling G5 computer boards, maybe only 1 3rd party company. Darned thing is too complex.

Basically the development of their chipsets slowed down when some of the companies exited the PPC chipset market after signing PPC970 agreements, don't think any real PPC970 3rd party Northbridges have hit the market.

And IBM would be quite willing to help design a UH3/PPC970 computer for anybody at their silly rates -- not cheap.

[DakotaGuy]

Apple will never become a software only company.

If I have learned anything this past year when it comes to Apple, never say never!

[puuukeey]

what about loading windows on a mac? just wondering

[steve_hill4]

If I have learned anything this past year when it comes to Apple, never say never!
Perhaps we shoudl say then "We hope Apple will never become a software only company and it is their own intention to remain within the hardware business."

To answer the previous point, Windows will load onto a MacIntel, (acording to apple unofficially), but Mac OS will not go onto a biege box PC. This means anyone who buys a MacIntel and needs to run a particular application in Windsows, they can install it as a dual boot. Anyone unsure whether to buy a PC or Mac will now be easier to persuade in the Mac's direction.

[Thersites]

Everyone almost without exception wants not to see clones. The reason they give is that it will destroy Apple's hardware business, or it will allow other people to buy products they don't want to buy themselves.

Well, the second argument is just silly. They, clones, may strike you as ugly, or not what you want, but if nothing was ever sold someone didn't like the look of, or someone didn't want to buy, the world would be a poorer place. If you don't want them, well, they are not being made for you, but you are not the only customers in the world. These feelings are simply irrelevant from a business strategy point of view.

The first argument is often made by people who also feel that Apple hardware is far better than the trashy stuff made by Dell, has better components, and is about the same price or even cheaper. And they feel that the integration of having the OS and the hardware under the control of one supplier improves the user experience.

If all this is true, why should selling the OS separately destroy the hardware business? Surely, people will carry on buying all this wonderful hardware at the same or lower prices? Dell will be unable to undercut Apple. In addition, the integrated experience from buying genuine Apple stuff will still be far better, and so people will carry on buying into that too. Especially as there will be no premium involved.

It is really an incomprehensible argument when you think about it. People seem to be arguing that product A is better and cheaper than product B, but if we allow product B to be sold, everyone will buy it, and no-one will buy B. It is like arguing that Fords are better and cheaper than Hondas, but if we allow Honda to open a dealership in our town, no-one will buy Fords any more. It doesn't make any sense.

There are only two ways out of this. One is to agree that the hardware is not better, or not better enough. The other is to agree that the integrated experience is not better, or not better enough.

I am a long term Apple user from way back, from before System 6 in fact, so I am not a knocker. I just would like people to make logical and consistent arguments when they think about this issue. If they do, they will be obliged to a very uncomfortable conclusion. The hardware is not different. The disks, memory, processors etc are all the same. The experience is better, but not because of integration, but because the OS is better. The hardware costs are and always have been uncompetitive. So, the company needs to change, get the costs out, and sell the hell out of the software. As one poster has said, it needs to have two divisions, a hardware business unit, and a software business unit.

The two are being pulled in different directions. The hardware people need to make stuff that any OS runs on, because that's how they maximize sales and returns. And they need to be cost competitive. The OS people need to sell as many copies as possible, and that means to any hardware anyone wants to use, not just the in-house hardware. Yes, some people want the integrated experience, whatever that is, but they are not the only market a company should sell to. Look after us, but not to the exclusion of everyone else. Because if you do, you will end up too small to be able to look after us, in the end.

[BenRoethig]

Everyone almost without exception wants not to see clones. The reason they give is that it will destroy Apple's hardware business, or it will allow other people to buy products they don't want to buy themselves.

Well, the second argument is just silly. They, clones, may strike you as ugly, or not what you want, but if nothing was ever sold someone didn't like the look of, or someone didn't want to buy, the world would be a poorer place. If you don't want them, well, they are not being made for you, but you are not the only customers in the world. These feelings are simply irrelevant from a business strategy point of view.

The first argument is often made by people who also feel that Apple hardware is far better than the trashy stuff made by Dell, has better components, and is about the same price or even cheaper. And they feel that the integration of having the OS and the hardware under the control of one supplier improves the user experience.

If all this is true, why should selling the OS separately destroy the hardware business? Surely, people will carry on buying all this wonderful hardware at the same or lower prices? Dell will be unable to undercut Apple. In addition, the integrated experience from buying genuine Apple stuff will still be far better, and so people will carry on buying into that too. Especially as there will be no premium involved.

It is really an incomprehensible argument when you think about it. People seem to be arguing that product A is better and cheaper than product B, but if we allow product B to be sold, everyone will buy it, and no-one will buy B. It is like arguing that Fords are better and cheaper than Hondas, but if we allow Honda to open a dealership in our town, no-one will buy Fords any more. It doesn't make any sense.

There are only two ways out of this. One is to agree that the hardware is not better, or not better enough. The other is to agree that the integrated experience is not better, or not better enough.

I am a long term Apple user from way back, from before System 6 in fact, so I am not a knocker. I just would like people to make logical and consistent arguments when they think about this issue. If they do, they will be obliged to a very uncomfortable conclusion. The hardware is not different. The disks, memory, processors etc are all the same. The experience is better, but not because of integration, but because the OS is better. The hardware costs are and always have been uncompetitive. So, the company needs to change, get the costs out, and sell the hell out of the software. As one poster has said, it needs to have two divisions, a hardware business unit, and a software business unit.

The two are being pulled in different directions. The hardware people need to make stuff that any OS runs on, because that's how they maximize sales and returns. And they need to be cost competitive. The OS people need to sell as many copies as possible, and that means to any hardware anyone wants to use, not just the in-house hardware. Yes, some people want the integrated experience, whatever that is, but they are not the only market a company should sell to. Look after us, but not to the exclusion of everyone else. Because if you do, you will end up too small to be able to look after us, in the end.

Three actually. Hardware, software, and digital lifestyle devices. Apple's prices are competitive when you look at similar hardware. They just sell hardware that is both different and upscale. There is nothing in the Apple world that you can directly compare to the $400 Celeron PC . Apple can't sell it. It would hurt their image that their Nordstrom of computer makers.

[PureMac]

In my opinion allowing mac clones will do nothing more than nearly destroy apples hardware development. With cheap machines available from say dell alot less people will purchase a genuine macintosh. For someone like me who loves apples hardware I don't want to see this happen.

those pics don't really prove much the shot is too blurry to see the specs of the machine and if you think about it there could just be a mac mini hiding out of camera that the screen is plugged into.
I made a pretty convincing pic of my own of my asus laptop. I just took a screen shot off my mac in the correct resolution and put it in slideshow mode. A video would be better.

Hey Will, I love skeptics and skepticism; however, check this out:

http://media.putfile.com/Tigerx86

Not convinced yet?

[toxicfreak]

PIRACY
apple a little choice but to fionding a way to offer osx to every platform or suffur the consequance piracy until no more .....


and dont start with the respect the laws blablabla ......
right now there a ton of osx on x86 machine and there nothing to stop them .....
so apple wanna conquer market apple wanna get big and flush winshit easy get out there and take the marklet by storm.

Or stay at 6% and die there ......

Or get pirated until anyways everybody have a hack version of mac osx on there box period ..... and at 149$ can$ who the hell will pirate a os at 149$

and for each os sell there 149$ more in apple pucket its better that nothing

[whooleytoo]

I tend to agree with you, Steve was the one to kill to original program to begin with. Why allow yourself to relive a painful part of your history that didn't work beforehand.

If Apple were to allow Intel OSX clones, it would be a very different proposition to the old PowerPC clones.

By allowing PPC clones, Apple simply became a smaller fish in a very small pool. People who would have bought Macs anyway bought cheaper clones instead, so instead of extra revenue Apple simply got a smaller piece of the pie.

Licensing OSX on Intel is very different, it means Apple will be a small fish in a very, very big pool. They might be getting a smaller slice (i.e. profit margins on software only, as opposed to software & hardware), but their potential customer base is enormous.

What would be very interesting to know - how profit does Microsoft make from off-the-shelf sales of Windows, versus how much from licensees such as Dell. Assuming the bulk of the profits comes from licensees, then that would determine whether Apple needs a big name (such as Dell, HP or whoever) to sign up, or offer off-the-shelf sales of OSX for Intel.

[AidenShaw]

Is Microsoft's image hurt by the fact that Windows becomes very unstable when run in a virtual machine on Linux boxes? Hardly.
I have lots of Windows virtual machines running on Linux hosts, and stability (either of the Windows VM or the Linux host) is never an issue.

Can you explain this claim?

[ioinc]

No, no, and NO! I, like many other Mac users, do not want to see this happen. Mac OS X is just fine on Apple hardware and only Apple hardware. Like Josh is saying, Mac sales are getting better by the day and don't show any signs of slowing down. Just leave it how it is... please.


Or you (and the other mac users that want it) could continue to buy the machines made by Apple and still allow others to have their choice.

Hmmmm.... choice.... good!

[ioinc]

Does anyone here picture Apple as a software company only?

Why would they have to be a software only company.

During the last round with cloes they continued to produce the hardware.

I see them as contiuing to do both. The only thing that changes is that some consumers are given more choice.

As a consumer this is a good thing. If Apple is really making the best hardware then they will win that battle.

They already make the best OS.... let it be free!

[Doozy]

Cloning is not going to happen. This would be a big mistake for Apple.

[AidenShaw]

There are some interesting Apple patents in regards to the possibility of being able to run multiple OSs at the same time, which would totally rock.
VT/Pacifica would allow Windows and OSX to run simultaneously at the hardware level - that is, if Apple decides to make it possible....

The Intel hardware will be able to do it, but Apple has to make it legal.

[CanadaRAM]

Why do people persist in thinking of Apple and Dell as hardware MANUFACTURERS? They are hardware designers and marketers, but neither company has been a manufacturer in the pure sense of the term for a long time.

Both Apple and Dell contract out their designs to low-cost and agile contract manufacturing companies in Taiwan, China, and other countries to build their machines for them (as do Hewlett-Packard and the rest. IBM is just the first company to publicly acknowledge the practice by selling their entire PC business to Lenovo, their manufacturing contractor in China). Companies that 'Manufacture' in North America are doing nothing more than assembling off-the-shelf parts from offshore suppliers.

Your Powerbook likely came out of the same factory as that Dell Inspiron, on side by side assembly lines. So does your 24" Cinema display.

Why is this significant? Because Apple originally licensed clone makers when they themselves were incapable of building a machine cheaply (that is, out of standard PC cases, IDE hard drives and optical drives, standard power supplies and keyboards). Remember that the PowerMac 8500 had only SCSI storage interfaces, proprietary serial port, proprietary keyboard and mouse port, a case and power supply incompatible with everything else in the world that was a bear to service, and cost a bomb. At the same time, the UMAX J700 machine used exactly the same chassis as a number of Dell models of the day, had more internal expandability and was $1000 less. That's why clone Macs were competitive. (And incidentally why Motorola Starmax machines had such p!$$-poor quality control).

Today, Apple has the overseas contractors, the sales volume, and the industry standards. So Apple themselves can have machines built every bit as cheap as any clone maker. Apple chooses to put more money into their cases and cosmetics to maintain their premium image (and premium profit margins).

Therefore, the only marginal advantages a clone maker would conceiveably have are:
1) Reduce price through reducing the cost (and quality) of cases, keyboards, and mice
2) Reach markets through mass distribution that Apple presently cannot sell to in volume.

#1 is not desirable to Apple.

It's hard to believe #2 that there is a market that isn't accessible to Apple's sales and marketing juggernaut. The only 2 I can think of are Wal-Mart/Costco low end mass retail, and overseas markets like China or India, although I know nothing about the reality of Apple's overseas success there. In both instances that is extremely low-margin business, which Apple has traditionally avoided like the plague.

Thanks
Trevor
CanadaRAM.com

[jofallon]

Apple has trouble enough keeping up with hardware issues as it is on their own hardware. See the host of hardware fixes in 10.4.3. If Apple had to support a clone, they lose the hardware profit and gain a huge support cost, for little or no extra return.

Microsoft has a lot more people working on Windows than Apple does on OS X, I suspect. Apple will have issues enough getting everything working on Intel branded motherboards certified to run OS X. Getting it working on all the second and third tier motherboards, with the variety of chipsets and BIOS's? And keeping OS X from being pirated (copied, if you prefer), as well? I don't think they could even do it, let alone make a decent profit at it. Just an opinion...

[kingtj]

It seems like somebody writes an article/opinion piece on Apple and the possibility of licensing out OS X every few months. Must be a staple item for tech. writers when they're thin on new material?

What I see is this: Apple would be foolish to license out OS X *unless* the transition to Intel-based Macs turns out to be a total flop. (And this *could* be the case, if it turns out it's too easy for people to hack OS X so it's fully functional on non Apple-branded hardware AND Apple's new hardware doesn't appeal to the masses.) In that scenario, Apple could easily "bail themselves out" by licensing OS X to companies like Dell, and instantly transitioning themselves to a software company instead of a hardware company. (Well, they'd still have iPods to sell - but not Macs.)

But I think that's an unlikely scenario, given Apple's proven ability to deliver hardware that people desire. Their biggest mistake would probably be overpricing the machines. If they keep the systems priced reasonably (and by that, I mean high enough so you feel like you got something of "premium quality" - yet not so high that nobody can figure out why it makes any sense to buy over an HP/Compaq, Gateway or Dell PC) - they should do fine.

There's a certain appeal to the idea of a machine that's capable of running BOTH Windows AND OS X at the same time, and doing so at native speeds in both cases. But Apple would be wise not to over-estimate the "value" of this, since as nice as OS X is, people are usually more concerned with the software applications they use. An awful lot of stuff people spend most of their time using on Macs is also available for Windows (all the Adobe products, for example!). Most cases where it's not are relatively "niche" markets, like users needing the power of "Final Cut Pro" for pro video editing. You don't want to become a business that can only sell a new computer to those "niche" people.


I doubt it apple makes most of its money of hardware. Clones would take away the seamless integration we mac user enjoy.

[j.b.]

beauty smeauty.....When I can save $500 on a superior Dell monitor that has the same bloody display in it who gives a crap.

This is exactly the kind of attitude that people who shop at Walmart have. Sometimes it isn't just about the deal, but sometimes people will buy a product based on the fact that they want to support a company, or sometimes not support a company.

[EricNau]

This is exactly the kind of attitude that people who shop at Walmart have. Sometimes it isn't just about the deal, but sometimes people will buy a product based on the fact that they want to support a company, or sometimes not support a company.
And K-Mart

[Stella]

This is exactly the kind of attitude that people who shop at Walmart have. Sometimes it isn't just about the deal, but sometimes people will buy a product based on the fact that they want to support a company, or sometimes not support a company.

This is snobbery. Apple 20" Display is a lot of money and certainly not the best quality by any means.

... and what is wrong with choosing a superior monitor over an Apple product?

Its not food or a sub $100 product, this is a $1000 ( Canadian ) product - a slight difference... your labelling is quite unfair in this instance.

[alienyouth211]

This reminds me of that funny video made "We're not a clone now"

Anyone got a link to that thing or seen it before?!? It featured some lip singing dancers arond the Apple Garden with the dogcow and everything!!

hahah, I laughed for hours when I saw that..

This?
http://www.thedailymac.com/clone.mp4

[ioinc]

This is exactly the kind of attitude that people who shop at Walmart have. Sometimes it isn't just about the deal, but sometimes people will buy a product based on the fact that they want to support a company, or sometimes not support a company.

This is how one gets a smacking by Adam Smith's invisible hand.

If you buy a product (any product) because of the company that makes it (rather than it is the best product/deal) you are potentially enabling a company to make an inferior product.

The reason to buy an Apple product is because it is the best product you can find for the price.... not because the Apple sticker is on it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Invisible_Hand

[LimeiBook86]

This?
http://www.thedailymac.com/clone.mp4
Hahahaha, sorry for the semi-off-topicness but, when was this video made? It's pretty damn funny! Hahahaha :D The icon garden is awesome, I'm surprised Apple let them film that there :p

[7on]

This is snobbery. Apple 20" Display is a lot of money and certainly not the best quality by any means.

... and what is wrong with choosing a superior monitor over an Apple product?

Its not food or a sub $100 product, this is a $1000 ( Canadian ) product - a slight difference... your labelling is quite unfair in this instance.

Research has shown that Apple uses a different blacklight in their monitors. Thus the resulting image is cooler than the Dell (which is warmer). Whether that means anything to you or not is up to the consumer. Someone might prefer a cooler colored screen just the same way some people prefer a certain earphone. And depending on how much this difference affects the consumer, he may choose to buy the higher cost of the Apple display.

I'm not arguing the better deal here - just explaining that there is a difference; a difference that depends on the consumer whether or not it is worth the extra money.

[edcrosay]

Anybody else see a coorealation between Apple and Nintendo?


Both companies virtually created the market in which they operate in.
Both companies are now niche players in that market.
Both companies are seen as major innovators.
Both companies value well designed products.
Both companies control both the hardware and software aspects of their products.
Every year the Apple clone debate rises: People argue Apple should be a software only company (except the iPod).
Every year people argue that Nintendo should be software only, and develop for other platforms.


I don't want to see either of these companies become purely software developers, instead of hardware manufacturers that happen to have a kick-ass software division.
By allowing mac clones (and Mario and Zelda on the PS4), these companies will destroy what makes them so great: the coupling of well designed hardware with well designed and intuitive software. If you take the hardware out of the equation, the companies will lose what attracts so many people to them: seemless integration with hardware and software.
Although this wouldnt be a problem for Nintendo, OSX, if released widely, must take into account the millions of different hardware specifications and arrangements out there. One thing that makes OSX so great, is it isnt bloated by having to worry about if an ISA card made 10 years ago will work or not. Apple, since the make their own hardware, will just stop manufacturing computers with old technology, i.e nubus and now PCI-X.
By having complete control over both the hardware and software aspects of their product, the companies are allowed greater freedom for innovation.

[ioinc]

Anybody else see a coorealation between Apple and Nintendo?


Both companies virtually created the market in which they operate in.
Both companies are now niche players in that market.
Both companies are seen as major innovators.
Both companies value well designed products.
Both companies control both the hardware and software aspects of their products.
Every year the Apple clone debate rises: People argue Apple should be a software only company (except the iPod).
Every year people argue that Nintendo should be software only, and develop for other platforms.



I don't know thtat Nintendo created the market.... Atari?
I don't know that Nintendo is (currently) considered an innovator. What have they done latley?
I don't know that Nintendo products are any different than those of their rivals in terms of quality.

What Nintendo are you thinking about? A string of poor decisions has virtually taken them out of the market.

[slooksterPSV]

I don't know thtat Nintendo created the market.... Atari?
I don't know that Nintendo is (currently) considered an innovator. What have they done latley?
I don't know that Nintendo products are any different than those of their rivals in terms of quality.

What Nintendo are you thinking about? A string of poor decisions has virtually taken them out of the market.
Virtually is what he said. That's completely different than starting the whole thing. They started to virtually build a mass market of Video Games, Consoles, and Players - Virtually is what I'm saying.

[yellow]

*sigh* Not this again..

Blah blah hardware company first and foremost blah blah

Apple has a lot more marketshare to capture with OS X before it can try and make the switch to selling THAT as it's premiere (non-iPod-related) cash cow.

[edcrosay]

I don't know thtat Nintendo created the market.... Atari?
I don't know that Nintendo is (currently) considered an innovator. What have they done latley?
I don't know that Nintendo products are any different than those of their rivals in terms of quality.
For one... I said "virtuallly" created the market. Atari was indeed the first pioneer into video games. They also, however, destroyed the market. Many at the time thought Nintendo was foolish for releasing the NES in a market that has so much customer dissatisfaction and was pretty much dead. They went against odds and blew open a dead market with an amazing product that was leaps and bounds greater than its competition.

Nintendo not an innovator? I can write for hours on this.... Well on the software front, they re-invented the 2-D platform genre with Super Mario Bros, they invented the 3-D platform genre with Super Mario 64 and so much more.

On the hardware front, specifically controllers, Nintendo introduced the following to console gaming: analog stick (N64), touch screen (NDS), force-feedback (N64), 1st-party wireless controllers (GC), digital pad (NES), trigger buttons (N64), shoulder buttons (SNES), and if you havent yet... you need to see what they are doing for their next console, codenamed revoluion. Check out a story here http://cube.ign.com/articles/651/651301p1.html

And with quality issues... I've known many a friend with a broken PS2, I even have 2 dead Xboxs in my apartment. I've never in the 20 years of owning a Nintendo system have had anything break on me. I'm still running my NES that I got in 1986, it doesnt work perfectly, but it works better than my Xboxs.

[EricNau]

And with quality issues... I've known many a friend with a broken PS2, I even have 2 dead Xboxs in my apartment. I've never in the 20 years of owning a Nintendo system have had anything break on me. I'm still running my NES that I got in 1986, it doesnt work perfectly, but it works better than my Xboxs.
I can back that up. I still have an original gameboy, works perfectly. I also have a Gameboy color, and gameboy Advance SP, and a Gamecube, all are in perfect condition.
Then again, Sony makes good things also, but Microsoft...that's another story. ;)

[steve_hill4]

I can back that up. I still have an original gameboy, works perfectly. I also have a Gameboy color, and gameboy Advance SP, and a Gamecube, all are in perfect condition.
Then again, Sony makes good things also, but Microsoft...that's another story. ;)
All my Nintendo systems work great, even my NES. Surprisingly even my Atari 2600 still works fine, (despite having a loose connector on the power supply).

Sony CD player, bust. Only plays Cds, (automatically), when I either close the lid or plug in power supple. No controls work, batteries don't work either. Headphone jack and optical out still fine, but can only play from start to finish. Great when I needed it to copy to my minidisc player through the optical out, but not for playing. Thank goodness I use my iPod now.

[ioinc]

All my Nintendo systems work great, even my NES. Surprisingly even my Atari 2600 still works fine, (despite having a loose connector on the power supply).

Sony CD player, bust. Only plays Cds, (automatically), when I either close the lid or plug in power supple. No controls work, batteries don't work either. Headphone jack and optical out still fine, but can only play from start to finish. Great when I needed it to copy to my minidisc player through the optical out, but not for playing. Thank goodness I use my iPod now.

All this and PlayStation still beats Nintendo by a significant amount.

Kind of makes you think that the majority of people are voting differently with their money.