is apple a HARDWARE or SOFTWARE company??

[DoFoT9]

i was always under the impression that apple was a software company. they buy other peoples hardware so that their software can run...

or am i wrong??

[zap2]

hardware makes them most of their money...but software is why I(and most people I'd guess) buy from them.


Because if Apple went to Windows only, I'd drop them. Ubuntu all the way.

In the end, I'd say the total package makes Apple the great computer company they are.

[calculus]

The answer to your question is 'Yes';)

[DoFoT9]

hhmm ok thanks for the input :)

haha ubuntu, nice zapy.

im not really sure, ive always thought that because of their heavy software production that it would make them a software company. but u kno...things change

[Sun Baked]

i was always under the impression that apple was a software company. they buy other peoples hardware so that their software can run...

or am i wrong??

Apple has a huge patent portfolio of both hardware and software.

Apple still develops systems, cases, and products their way -- which is why their PCs have Apple I/O integrated instead of the same port mix a Dell/HP uses (aka, not quite Centrino because some of the Intel chips are swapped for non-Intel vendors like the FW/ethernet/wireless.)

If Apple just bough other people's work and slapped their OS and case in the cardboard box, the Centrino label would likely be added for that extra unit discount from Intel.

---

But due to the switch to Intel, Apple has freed up cash and time used to pay for actual CPU/chipset development for other hardware.

So there is a lot more cash and people to toss at other projects/products these days.

---

If you look at the software side, Apple has been steadily buying companies and making them OS X only for a long time. Like logic/shake/final cut/etc.

Then there are the iLife/iWork/Filemaker etc. software apps that sell well and have to be developed.

So they ain't just an OS company either.

[strider42]

hhmm ok thanks for the input :)

im not really sure, ive always thought that because of their heavy software production that it would make them a software company. but u kno...things change

NOthings really changed. Apple has never used entirely stock components, the've tended to design their own motherboards and what not. So they've always been in the hardware design business, its not just pretty cases with stock stuff inside it. That's true today even though they use more standard stuff since the intel switch.

What apple is, in my opinion, is a hardware company that uses software to drive sales (true in computers, and also true with iTunes, which is mainly a vehicle to drive iPod sales, they make almost nothing on the music itself). If it wasn't for the software, they'd be nowhere. Without the hardware, they wouldn't make any money. But if the question is where do they make their money, its definitely all in the hardware. They have far and away the highest gross margins of any manufacturer (but also more overhead because they design the hardware and software themselves).

I think its important to understand that apple see's their computers as a whole product, software and hardware. That lockin allows them to make more money, and provide a better user experience. Its a pretty key point that drives a lot of the decisions they make, such as not licensing OS X to other vendors.

[Much Ado]

As Apple operate an end-to-end model with all their devices and Macs, i would say that they don't do 'software' and 'hardware' as much as they simply do 'Appleware'. They are an enigma in this industry that is quite difficult to pin down.

The software drives the hardware sales which drives the profit :)

[DoFoT9]

Apple has a huge patent portfolio of both hardware and software.

Apple still develops systems, cases, and products their way -- which is why their PCs have Apple I/O integrated instead of the same port mix a Dell/HP uses (aka, not quite Centrino because some of the Intel chips are swapped for non-Intel vendors like the FW/ethernet/wireless.)

If Apple just bough other people's work and slapped their OS and case in the cardboard box, the Centrino label would likely be added for that extra unit discount from Intel.

---

But due to the switch to Intel, Apple has freed up cash and time used to pay for actual CPU/chipset development for other hardware.

So there is a lot more cash and people to toss at other projects/products these days.

---

If you look at the software side, Apple has been steadily buying companies and making them OS X only for a long time. Like logic/shake/final cut/etc.

Then there are the iLife/iWork/Filemaker etc. software apps that sell well and have to be developed.

So they ain't just an OS company either.

ok so apple designs the cases, and designs the systems and DECIDES on the components. but they still donot make those actual components. intel does, or whoever.

this would be true for dell aswell, but dell doesnot make software. therefore dell is a hardware company.

NOthings really changed. Apple has never used entirely stock components, the've tended to design their own motherboards and what not. So they've always been in the hardware design business, its not just pretty cases with stock stuff inside it. That's true today even though they use more standard stuff since the intel switch.

What apple is, in my opinion, is a hardware company that uses software to drive sales (true in computers, and also true with iTunes, which is mainly a vehicle to drive iPod sales, they make almost nothing on the music itself). If it wasn't for the software, they'd be nowhere. Without the hardware, they wouldn't make any money. But if the question is where do they make their money, its definitely all in the hardware. They have far and away the highest gross margins of any manufacturer (but also more overhead because they design the hardware and software themselves).

I think its important to understand that apple see's their computers as a whole product, software and hardware. That lockin allows them to make more money, and provide a better user experience. Its a pretty key point that drives a lot of the decisions they make, such as not licensing OS X to other vendors.

true ipods and iphones and :apple:TV are hardware. thats a valid point. apple has sort of come across on both markets, that being both hardware and software. it is true that apple would now make a very large profit from their hardware. but if not for the software there wouldnt be any need to be run by the hardware. like i said, apple buys the hardware from other manufacturers. they dont produce it themselves.


As Apple operate an end-to-end model with all their devices and Macs, i would say that they don't do 'software' and 'hardware' as much as they simply do 'Appleware'. They are an enigma in this industry that is quite difficult to pin down.

The software drives the hardware sales which drives the profit :)

so apple is kinda in their own league??? having the best of both worlds and deciding exactly what they want and who they want it?? i spose that is why they are doing so well even tho they have really high prices for their computer hardware components, aswell as some underpowered/weaker components (e.g. GPU)

[clevin]

apple makes no hardwares inside your computer. or mostly.

It doesn't make mainboard, graphic card, display, sound card, memory, CPU, cables, etc, etc, it juts buy them from others, sometimes insert some design requirements. and assemble them together, put OSX on it.

so apple is kinda in their own league??? having the best of both worlds and deciding exactly what they want and who they want it??
no need to mystified the situation, apple isn't picking best hardwares out their. nothing really about "best of both worlds". most of the time, apple's hardwares are not the top of the line stuff. which is expected from apple's model.

[lord patton]

Answer: both

[shecky]

Apple is neither a hardware or a software company.

Apple is an experience company. thats what you are buying, the apple experience.

[dejo]

Apple sells both hardware and software. Ergo, they are both a hardware and software company.

[ghall]

I don't understand why Apple has to be one or the other, why can't they just be both, because that's what they are.

[psychofreak]

Apple sells both hardware and software. Ergo, they are both a hardware and software company.

Although I'd call Apple a 'both' company, I'm not too keen on your argument: Microsoft sells hardware and software, but I'd call them a 'Software company that happens to sell hardware' :)

[MLeepson]

Apple does hardware. Hardware to apple means cases and what not. They do industrial design.

[flopticalcube]

They are a technology company. Any other distinction is pointless these days.

[Sun Baked]

ok so apple designs the cases, and designs the systems and DECIDES on the components. but they still donot make those actual components. intel does, or whoever.

this would be true for dell aswell, but dell doesnot make software. therefore dell is a hardware company.

Apple used to help design and pay for chips during the PowerPC days, the switch to Intel only shifted the cost of some stuff exclusively to Intel.

Apple is likely still pushing hard for Intel to integrate stuff they need/want into the chipset.

If Intel doesn't make it, likely they will use someone else's chip.

[clevin]

Apple is likely still pushing hard for Intel to integrate stuff they need/want into the chipset.

If Intel doesn't make it, likely they will use someone else's chip.

welcome to the real world. use someone else's chip? I would be shocked if apple were to have that much power over intel.

[Sun Baked]

welcome to the real world. use someone else's chip? I would be shocked if apple were to have that much power over intel.

Yep, nothing wrong with using Broadcom, Atheros, etc. chips if Intel doesn't deliver what they want or need.

They are not tied to being 100% Centrino compliant, so other vendor chips are not a problem -- since they still use other vendors for chips right now.

Sort of surprised the Broadcom 10gig ethernet chips haven't shown up yet in the Mac Pros.

Edit: Of course Apple is also much more likely to want to integrate the tech faster than the Wintel world also -- so we may see Intel try to sway Apple away from their vendors with their integrated lower cost solutions.

[DoFoT9]

apple makes no hardwares inside your computer. or mostly.

It doesn't make mainboard, graphic card, display, sound card, memory, CPU, cables, etc, etc, it juts buy them from others, sometimes insert some design requirements. and assemble them together, put OSX on it.

no need to mystified the situation, apple isn't picking best hardwares out their. nothing really about "best of both worlds". most of the time, apple's hardwares are not the top of the line stuff. which is expected from apple's model.
the use use of other peoples hardware would save apple time, instead of having to produce them themselves. thats why i think they are a software company. they dont manufacter the products themselves, simply design them and make someone else do it...


Apple is neither a hardware or a software company.

Apple is an experience company. thats what you are buying, the apple experience.

Apple sells both hardware and software. Ergo, they are both a hardware and software company.

I don't understand why Apple has to be one or the other, why can't they just be both, because that's what they are.

Although I'd call Apple a 'both' company, I'm not too keen on your argument: Microsoft sells hardware and software, but I'd call them a 'Software company that happens to sell hardware' :)

They are a technology company. Any other distinction is pointless these days.
i think all of those 5 statements above are fairly commendable and accurate. true, apple does "design" the hardware so technically that would still fall under them producing the hardware, just not the actual manufactoring part.

however i am still inclinded to think that because apple doesnt manufacture the hardware themselves, (similar to pretty much every company i spose) they tend to be more software orientated with a big hardware based cover over them.
compare apple to companies like dell, HP, ASUS and apple is a "hardware company"
but compare them to microsoft and linux and they are a "software company"
maybe they really are a "technology company" making use of everything that is avaliable out there to make the most of it.

[johnmartin78]

They call themselves a software company,but to me they are a hardware company.

[elppa]

Steve answered this at D:All things Digital.

It's fairly clear in my mind.

Apple is primarily a software company.

[psychofreak]

They call themselves a software company,but to me they are a hardware company.

Are you more excited by a new iLife than a new iPod/Mac?

I think that the beauty of Apple is shown in their most popular product: they can achieve both the exceptional hardware of the iPod and the exceptional software iTunes. I mean, Creative's Zen Stone really is better value than the Shuffle, but without iTunes, the experience is much worse.

[elppa]

Are you more excited by a new iLife than a new iPod/Mac?

Isn't software the most important part of the Mac?

Because take the Mac OS X out of the Mac and all you are left with is a generic computer, which could run Vista, Ubuntu, Solaris or one of the many other operating systems available.

[psychofreak]

Isn't software the most important part of the Mac?

Because take the Mac OS X out of the Mac and you are left with a generic computer, which could run Vista, Ubuntu, Solaris etc.

Which would you rather own, running Vista/Ubuntu/Solaris?

http://tangelo.quickshareit.com/share/imackeyboard_4_20070807a6ac9.jpg

And, part of why OSX is so great is that the software is made to suit the hardware, unlike Windows.

[notjustjay]

Which would you rather own, running Vista/Ubuntu/Solaris?

And, part of why OSX is so great is that the software is made to suit the hardware, unlike Windows.

Ok, but which would you prefer if you only had the choice between:

(a) beautiful aluminum iMac, running Vista

(b) ugly Dell XPS, running OS X with iLife

I choose (b) -- I choose Apple primarily for their software. The fact that their hardware looks fantastic is just gravy.

Of course, as others have said, there's no clear-cut division, and the fact that the software is so preferable is, like you say, a function of the hardware being designed specifically for it (and vice versa).

[LethalWolfe]

Apple is a hardware company that had to resort to developing a lot of first party software because they lost so much 3rd party support when they were going down the tubes in the '90s. They make their money selling hardware (computers, iPods, :apple:TV, etc.,) and use high quality, low cost first party software to drive hardware sales.


Lethal

[GavinTing]

They are a hardware company that sells software to complement their macs. Remember, they still make big bucks from iPods! They happen to make software so that people will buy their hardware. Most of you guys don't realise that the argument is not about iMacs, Macbooks, and other computers. It's also related to the iPods.. Which is one of the reasons Apple Computer became Apple..

Since iPods are hardware.. Well.. Apple is both!

[DoFoT9]

They are a hardware company that sells software to complement their macs. Remember, they still make big bucks from iPods! They happen to make software so that people will buy their hardware. Most of you guys don't realise that the argument is not about iMacs, Macbooks, and other computers. It's also related to the iPods.. Which is one of the reasons Apple Computer became Apple..

Since iPods are hardware.. Well.. Apple is both!

yes apple does make BIG bucks from ipods. but remember, apple doesnt produce that hardware, they buy it from other companies! apple itself ONLY produces the software (their programers do that). their designers design the hardware and whatnot to make it how they want it to look, but they dont actually make it, they make some1 else do that...

[tomoisyourgod]

Ok, but which would you prefer if you only had the choice between:

(a) beautiful aluminum iMac, running Vista

(b) ugly Dell XPS, running OS X with iLife

I choose (b) -- I choose Apple primarily for their software. The fact that their hardware looks fantastic is just gravy.

Of course, as others have said, there's no clear-cut division, and the fact that the software is so preferable is, like you say, a function of the hardware being designed specifically for it (and vice versa).

That's a good point, have to agree with you on that one, OS X is by far the best OS out there.

Thankfully though, Apple combine the best of both world's in the best OS and beautiful hardware

[LethalWolfe]

yes apple does make BIG bucks from ipods. but remember, apple doesnt produce that hardware, they buy it from other companies! apple itself ONLY produces the software (their programers do that). their designers design the hardware and whatnot to make it how they want it to look, but they dont actually make it, they make some1 else do that...
Dell doesn't produce the components that go inside their brand of machines either but I don't think anyone is going to say Dell isn't a computer hardware company.


Lethal

[elppa]

low cost first party software to drive hardware sales.l

But some of the cost of a Mac is going into the software. And when you "buy" Mac OS X for $129 you are really only buying an upgrade, it doesn not reflect the true value of the product.

Apple worked out long ago that people don't like paying for software, so they built their hardware as a way of selling it.

Microsoft also worked this out, which is why they forced PC manufacturers to sign exclusice contracts to only bundle Windows with their PCs.

Remember, they still make big bucks from iPods!

iPod wouldn't be successful without the software.

[DoFoT9]

Dell doesn't produce the components that go inside their brand of machines either but I don't think anyone is going to say Dell isn't a computer hardware company.


Lethal

true good point, hardly any computer companies do they just get them from some Taiwanese factory and put their label on it. but dell doesnt make any software at all, so that would leave you thinking what kind of company they are.. (hardware)

[LethalWolfe]

But some of the cost of a Mac is going into the software. And when you "buy" Mac OS X for $129 you are really only buying an upgrade, it doesn not reflect the true value of the product.
Of course some of the cost of the Mac is for the software, but Apple doesn't price it's software to be the money maker. The most recent example of this is the Color program that comes in the FCS 2 suite. Last year Final Touch (which Apple purchased and renamed Color) cost $25,000 or $30,000. Today, for $1300, you get Color, FCP, DVD SP, Motion, Soundtrack Pro, Cinema Tools, and LiveType.

Apple worked out long ago that people don't like paying for software, so they built their hardware as a way of selling it.

Apple has always been about selling boxes though. The "clone years" nearly killed Apple because people weren't buying Apple's machines they were buying Apple licensed machines from other hardware companies. Everything from iLife to FCP was pretty much a life saving bootstrapping effort on Apple's part because 3rd parties stopped making software for the Mac. What started out as a requirement for survival has evolved into standard operating procedure.


Lethal

[elppa]

Of course some of the cost of the Mac is for the software, but Apple doesn't price it's software to be the money maker. The most recent example of this is the Color program that comes in the FCS 2 suite. Last year Final Touch (which Apple purchased and renamed Color) cost $25,000 or $30,000. Today, for $1300, you get Color, FCP, DVD SP, Motion, Soundtrack Pro, Cinema Tools, and LiveType.

Apple has always been about selling boxes though. The "clone years" nearly killed Apple because people weren't buying Apple's machines they were buying Apple licensed machines from other hardware companies. Everything from iLife to FCP was pretty much a life saving bootstrapping effort on Apple's part because 3rd parties stopped making software for the Mac. What started out as a requirement for survival has evolved into standard operating procedure.


Lethal

Interesting points lethal, but I don't really understand the arguments fully, as plenty of third parties make software for the Mac. WWDC gets bigger and bigger every year.

So surely there is no need for Apple to make software anymore if your theory follows.

Apple makes software because they are good at it and it is an area of strength, not because no one else will.

What got Apple into problems was not pushing forward on the software front (i.e. dragging System 7 on for far to long and failing to replace it soon enough).

[LethalWolfe]

Interesting points lethal, but I don't really understand the arguments fully, as plenty of third parties make software for the Mac. WWDC gets bigger and bigger every year.
This wasn't the case when Apple was struggling and even long time partners (like Adobe and Avid) were looking to ditch the platform.

So surely there is no need for Apple to make software anymore if your theory follows.

Apple makes software because they are good at it and it is an area of strength, not because no one else will.

Which is what I meant by saying Apple's bootstrapping tactics turned into standard operating procedure. They originally turned to making so much first party software because they had to, but the software was so good that, as you said, it's become an area of strength.


Lethal

[DoFoT9]

Interesting points lethal, but I don't really understand the arguments fully, as plenty of third parties make software for the Mac. WWDC gets bigger and bigger every year.

So surely there is no need for Apple to make software anymore if your theory follows.

Apple makes software because they are good at it and it is an area of strength, not because no one else will.

What got Apple into problems was not pushing forward on the software front (i.e. dragging System 7 on for far to long and failing to replace it soon enough).

clearly apple needs to continue making software, e.g. OSX and ilife etcetc. if they discontinued making that then there wouldnt be any future upgrades no??
apple makes software because they are a software company. pretty simple really.

[elppa]

Which is what I meant by saying Apple's bootstrapping tactics turned into standard operating procedure. They originally turned to making so much first party software because they had to, but the software was so good that, as you said, it's become an area of strength.

But the original Mac had impressive software for the time. So I think it was always an area of strength, even if they lost their way in the 90s.

[DoFoT9]

But the original Mac had impressive software for the time. So I think it was always an area of strength, even if they lost their way in the 90s.

and they now have their strength back :p

[LethalWolfe]

clearly apple needs to continue making software, e.g. OSX and ilife etcetc. if they discontinued making that then there wouldnt be any future upgrades no??
apple makes software because they are a software company. pretty simple really.
If Apple is a software company first and foremost why do they ignore the massive Windows market w/the lone exception of software (Safari and iTunes) that will facilitate the sale Apple hardware (iPhone, and iPods)?

But the original Mac had impressive software for the time. So I think it was always an area of strength, even if they lost their way in the 90s.
Jobs and Woz built and sold computers. When they first saw a GUI they went "Holy crap, if we develop that we'll sell more computers" as opposed to Bill Gates who went, "Holy crap, if I develop that I'll sell more software." ;)
Apple did push the industry forward when they introduced a GUI to the desktop computer, but you could only get that GUI if you purchased Apple hardware. Besides the Apple operating systems what other killer first party software was there?

Apple is all about selling their hardware and they've learned to make top quality software that showcases the hardware.


Lethal