Solving Apple's Delima

Discussion in 'General Mac Discussion' started by nucFlash, Aug 10, 2004.

  1. macrumors newbie

    Jan 25, 2004
    The dilemma is market share. The Mac OS will never succeed in gaining market share against the Windows platform. I'm sorry to be so blunt, but this is the terrible truth to which I recently awoke.

    We (meaning we Macintosh supporters) can sit back and play arm chair general and tell ourselves that the Power Macintosh G5 is going to turn it around, but it isn't. Yes, the PowerPC 970 processor is the most powerful desktop processor in the world. When it reaches the 3Ghz. mark and beyond, it will without a doubt beat every single benchmark when compared with an Intel Compatible Processors, be it an Intel or AMD processor. The terrible truth is that this isn't enough.

    I believe tough situations call for tough choices. It is with this in mind that I ask you to consider my following thought.

    I believe Apple computer should split.

    I believe one Corporation (Let's call it; hmmmm...Next Computing Corp.;)) should be created to solely develop the Mac OS X operating system.

    Think about it. Without being tired to a specific platform, Next Computing Corp. (the theoretical company formed after Apple Computers split) would be free to move Mac OS X to every popular hardware platform in existence. Mac OS X Server could move from strictly Macintosh servers to any server platform it liked. It would have deep financial interests in moving to IBM's line of high end PowerPC processors. Later, it could be ported to the full range of Dell's popular line of PowerEdge Servers.

    This, in fact, would be the perfect place to start in a migration to the X86 platform simply because Dell is already showing a growing defiance against Microsoft. They have been experimenting with introducing Linux for years, now that Microsoft cannot seriously fight back without risking D.O.J. intervention; they are more than likely simply waiting for the right opportunity.

    As a desktop operating system, Mac OS X would still of course remain on the Macintosh desktop. As part of the Slit, Apple Computer (I see no reason why the name Apple Computer could not be retained for the hardware only company that was left) could negotiate a ten year agreement from Next Computing Corp. to continue supporting and innovating on the Macintosh PowerPC desktop.

    Just as a split would open new avenues for the Mac OS, so would it open new avenues for the Power Macintosh PowerPC platform. Free of supporting an operating system, Apple Computer would be in the perfect position of leveraging its control of the most powerful desktop computers in the world by actively encouraging support of the it from leading Operating System vendors. Apple could actively encourage the development of the bergining Linux desktop for the Power Macintosh Platform. And....

    Apple could at last be in a position truly ending the financial struggle with Microsoft by actively supporting to porting of the Windows Operating System to the Power Macintosh Platform. Microsoft is already porting the Windows kernel to the PowerPC processor via the xBox 2 project. This could simply be expanded from porting a stripped down kernel to porting the full kernel.

    Microsoft has nothing to lose and all to gain from being able to claim the prize of supporting the most power desktop computers on the market.

    Next Computing Corp. could begin finally edging into Windows market share by being able to compete on their home territory, the X86 platform.

    It is my firm belief that these events would ultimately lead to a virtual 50/50 market share between the Mac OS (Mac OS X Server for PowerPC and X86 and Mac OS X Desktop for PowerPC and X86) and the Windows Operating Systems. Everyone involved, including Apple, would stand to gain substantially, both financially and in overall controlled market share.

    Now, what does everyone else think?
  2. macrumors 65816


    Aug 4, 2004
    San Francisco, CA

    That there's absolutely no point to this thread and everything that's been said about Apple's market share has been said before.
  3. macrumors 601


    Apr 8, 2004
    O MY GOD!!! is it April 1st already ?? i think what you are saying is a mixture of all the rumors that have come and gone through the many forums accross the net . to be frank .. i dont realy care for market share ! i have a product that WORKS and works well WHY would i want to give that up by letting Micro$oft build me an OS that just will not work !
    win 95 win98 win me win 2000 win XP need i go on , without getting out of my depth here, Just to say i like it the way things are Mac OS for Mac Computers .


  4. 7on
    macrumors 601


    Nov 9, 2003
    Dress Rosa
    OSX for x86 would not work. Too many devices that would have to be added support for. Thus OSX would loose some of it's appeal (I can for instance install OSX to a FW drive and boot off of it on any Mac within the last 4 years - Windows 2000 refused to boot on from an internal drive which wasn't in the original computer I installed 2000 in). We have one place to download drivers from -, Windows users have to keep track of what internals they have and frequently visit sites for driver updates (Nvidia, Intel/Asus, Creative, etc). Also, Steve Jobs believes Apple shouldn't be going for market share right now. Apple s increasing their installed user base - but not as fast as PCs so it looks like they are loosing. I'm sure if Apple survived the System 7-OS8 days with such a low market share they need not worry about 3rd-party programs being pulled.

    And I'm sure Apple would be thrilled if Linux overtook Windows. Because Apple could make OSX (theoretically) play better with Linux than with Windows because of the same core stuff. If Linux dominated Windows, or even became 1/2 of Windows users, I'm sure Apple would make their OS free. Because, of course, of the hardware.

    Not to mention all of the apps would have to be ported. Even if they were getting iChat to play with all the webcams would be hard (if a user can't buy a Mac - they won't be purchasing an iSight).

    Microsoft would love for Windows to run on the Mac. They loved it so much they bought VPC. Gates has been quoted as saying that Microsoft made more money from every Mac sold than from every PC sold.
  5. macrumors 65816

    Dr. Dastardly

    Jun 26, 2004
    I live in a giant bucket!
    I just figured that 95% of the world was stupid anyway and that percentage fell neatly into the non Mac crowd. :p
  6. macrumors demi-god


    Jan 11, 2002
    Los Angeles
    In short you want to remove many of advantages found on the Mac platform and replace them with many of disadvantages found on the Windows/x86 platform.

    Now, honestly, does that sound like a good idea? ;)

  7. macrumors 68020


    Jul 6, 2003
    Los Angeles
    What an original idea for a thread. How is it that MacRumors has gone this long and never discussed Apple's marketshare?

    Apple hasn't got a problem, doesn't need to compete with Microsoft, and shouldn't compete with Microsoft because going head to head against Microsoft means your brutal death.

    Apple should keep doing what they've been doing. Unless you're a stockholder, just enjoy your Mac and don't worry about anything.
  8. macrumors G5

    Sun Baked

    May 19, 2002
    Let's repeat history. :rolleyes:

    You see, only one problem with OS X returning to it's NeXT roots and becoming a software company and porting the OS to ANY CPU you can name.

    It was tried, and failed in the market.

    Steve Jobs tried porting the NeXT OS to x86 and couldn't save the company.

    He tried moving the programming framework, what is now Cocoa, to various companies OS's and CPUs -- even with nominal interest from Sun and IBM, it failed.

    People wanted a product that came out of the Taligen/Pink programming framework project that did the same thing as Cocoa being made by Apple/IBM (was supposed to be an OS like NeXT but the IBM leader in charge s-canned the OS).

    People were even ready to dump NeXT as soon as the Taligent framework hit the market.

    The Apple name was magic for the OS, sort of.


    Funny thing is Apple also tried to become a software company, and that fiasco failed and almost led the company into bankruptcy -- also called the clone fiasco.
  9. macrumors 6502

    Oct 24, 2003
    Apple's DELIMA?

    Delima? You're not from New Zealand are you? :D
  10. macrumors 601


    Feb 4, 2004
    Florida Resident
    It won't work. Look at NeXT Step, BeOS, OS/2, DR-DOS, Solaris, Free BSD, and even the mighty Linux. Hardly any market penetration from all those Operating Systems combined. Even thin-clients running JAVA didn't change anything. Microsoft is too powerful so it's better just to compete on a separate hardware platform that you can control and be out of harms way. I see switchers all the time. The Mac isn't going anywhere and Microsoft is getting long in the tooth with their slow progress. This will create more switchers that want the latest and greatest. Microsoft is going to be the next Quark someday.

    Service Pack 2 is going to be released. A huge milestone for Microsoft. Wow!
  11. macrumors 603


    Feb 2, 2002
    Why, precisely, does Apple need to gain marketshare? They're sitting on a massive cash stockpile, they're debt-free, they have nice profit margins, and they're currently dominating the digital music arena. They're churning out great products, true processor speed is bad right now, but it won't be forever. I don't see the problem with Apple's marketshare.

    Anyway, Apple wouldn't have to split to start porting OS X to other processors. It's not going to happen either way, so speculation is tiresome.

  12. thread starter macrumors newbie

    Jan 25, 2004
    As a matter of fact I am an investor and I do not think $60 Million in profit on several BILLION in revenue is exactly terrific. Why exactly does Apple need Marketshare, I guess it doesn't if it is actually a non-profit organization.

    I'm sorry, I do do not see why Apple should condemn itself to a backend of the computer industry by selling toys when it could become the very thing we all fear.

    I think with the right strategy Apple could become the next Microsoft. I think a return to former glory is in order and I do not see why it should be ignored.
  13. macrumors 68020


    Jul 6, 2003
    Los Angeles
    Slashdot to the rescue

    This guy makes much more sense then the "take on Microsoft and take their ass down in 4 easy steps" crowd.

    I still insist that Apple hasn't got a problem.
  14. macrumors 6502a

    May 17, 2004
    Why is this a dilemma? Apple has the iPod and the "Switch" campaign, both of which are successfully getting people's attention directed towards Macintosh computers. In due time, 10 percent of computer users in the United States will be using Macs because of the iPod and "Switch". The second Apple releases an iPod with built-in wireless firewire and a notebook with a built in wireless firewire, people will be clamoring for Macs. The only trouble is that Apple is more than frequently unable to deal with supply and demand.

    Also, Apple's wildly successful retail stores in malls and street locations has made it clear to people that Macs are indeed better than Windows-based PCs. Dell Outlets are very sparse and only exist in certain states, and Gateway stores have never been successful. There are very, very few Sony stores (I know of only one in midtown, nyc). It's interesting that Apple stores are so profitable.
  15. Rai
    macrumors member

    May 1, 2003
    built-in wireless firewire (wow i didn't even now a thing like that existed??)

    I invest heavily in apple stock. bought it at 13 dollars a while back and now it is floating at 30-33. It has been an exciting 2 years ipods!!, itunes, G5, and apple retail stores (that help spread the wow factor).

    But surprising this hasn't changed apple's marketshare, which is troubling. I don't think that apple needs to or can compete against microsoft, but its needs to stablize its marketshare in the 5-10% region.

    In todays markets computers have become short-lived items with lifespans of 2-3years. You can buy yourself a decent pc under 1000 US, and top of the line at 2k, and for those that have the computer no how they can upgrade there machines for a few hundred by replacing mobo and cpu.

    apple computer base G5 is 1999, 2999 for 2.5... for proffesionals these are exceptable prices. But for consumers what is going to drive them to spend 1-2k more on a computer with limited upgrade ability....

    hopefully the entry of the G5 imac will bring a computer along that is attractive for consumers and will help market share
  16. macrumors 603


    Dec 20, 2002
    sunny los angeles
    okay goddamit why do these topics keep coming up?!

    Solaris, NeXTStep, *BSD, OS/2...if people want to use them, LET THEM!!! They're not all purpose OSs like Windows! You cant expect more than 1% to use them because they werent meant to be used that way!
    AND FFS, you do realize what youre saying when you mention FreeBSD?! OS X/Darwin was derived from the BSD branch of Unix, the same one that FreeBSD, NetBSD, OpenBSD, DragonFlyBSD...all those variants came from. And FreeBSD is a very nice OS, thank you very much.

    And I very much prefer (yes my parents and i am apple shareholders) that Apple stay as is, maybe grow one more percent here and there...I do NOT want them to gain too much marketshare. I don't want to see an influx of users that will create nothing but devastation for the Mac community and Apple.

    And why would you want OS X to run on bloody IA32/64?! That's just pure insanity. Apple would go bankrupt considering how they make most of their profits in hardware and pro software, not consumer stuff. If you're dissatisfied with Windows, go use Linux or *BSD. Fedora Core with the Anaconda installer is muchmuch better to deal with than Windows and its ten hours to format a bloody drive.
  17. macrumors 603


    Dec 20, 2002
    sunny los angeles
    note to EVERYONE in this thread, market share cannot be determined accurately.
    Please drill that statement into your heads, thank you.

    Depending on who you listen to, Apple's market share right now is anywhere from 3 to 15 percent. Really, there's no way to find out for sure. So lets stop relying on statistics having to do with Apple's market share, user base, et cetera.
  18. macrumors G4

    Jul 17, 2002
    Owning two shares of stock doesn't exactly qualify you as Rockefeller. The key to success in today's business environment is to do what you do well. Leave the other things to others. Apple has the key to success and is using it magnificantly. It is not "condemned" to anything. Of the major computer manufacturers whose primary business is selling computers, Apple is only one of two earning a profit on their computer businesses. The other profitable manufacturer is Dell. Did you notice that Dell is following Gateway in redirecting its focus toward cheap flatscreen TV sets? Apple's focus is still on its computers.
  19. macrumors G5

    Sun Baked

    May 19, 2002
    They were looking for ANY new sources of profit, Dell went into the printer business in order to make the "monthly" profit on the sales of printer supplies (ie, ink).

    The printer manufactures have gone the way of the Gillete Razor for the low-end/entry level product, give away the razor and make money on the refills.

    There ain't much ink in the refills of some of those cheap/free printers. :(

    Look at the cheap $200 Laser Printers $69 for a toner cartridge that last 2000 pages, while the 2000&up Laser Printer have cartridges that last 30,000 ($269) based on 5% coverage.

    The new big ass HP Laser 9065 has a 47,500 page cartridge at 6% coverage.

    Then there are the cheap/free inkjets, which you have to wonder if there is actually ink inside the cartridge, and the page yield. :(
  20. macrumors 6502


    Jun 1, 2004
    California Coast
    This is when i jump ship

    The day Apple becomes "the next Micro$oft" is the day I start looking for another platform.

    We ALL enjoy our Apple machines becuase they have not been whored into every possible configuration. They are pure and simple. Apple is not trying to please everyone.

    Those who want an everyman machine can choose from the 100's of PC clone on the market.
  21. macrumors G5

    Sun Baked

    May 19, 2002
    Well if Apple really wants to rule the world and overtake MicroSoft they can always follow the Toys R Us/Boise Cascade model and sell off all their traditional core businesses to MicroSoft and start selling coffee and donuts.

    I think we can knock Krispy Kreme and Startbucks off the map and Apple will rule the world. [​IMG]
  22. macrumors 68040


    Mar 26, 2001
    Over The Rainbow
    The Day that Apple has more than 51% of marketshare is the day the will be like Microsoft.
  23. macrumors 68020


    Dec 3, 2003
    Southeastern Louisiana
    "Awoke to a terrible truth."

    What terrible truth? Apple is doing better now than ever before, and unlike most computer companies, making a profit.

    If Apple developed OS X for X86, the Mac platform would simply disappear. Why would people (besides us faithful) buy a Mac when they could cobble together any 'ol computer for $500-$1000 and run Apple's OS on it?

    No offense or anything, but nucflash, you really are an idiot.
  24. macrumors regular

    Jun 17, 2004
    Los Angeles, CA
    hmmm... actually you see a few of these discussions popping up now and then, and they're not just confined to Apple either, I see it with Nintendo alot lately (kind of a gamer here).

    The main point to look at is Apple has stuck to what works for them, and they're pulling a rather nice profit with it at the same time as well. Along with that the iPod almost offers a rather nice foot in the door system for Apple as a whole. Through an iPod you can easily reach a PC user's basic desires, something pretty and flashy in most cases. The simplicity of the Mac is conveyed through the iPod, and when they enter the store to buy random accessory X they're eventually going to look at an emac at least.

    Apple hasn't gone cut throat out for buisness like some would like, yet despite that they are making a profit and bringing out a good product. Look at Nintendo as an example, people have constantly suggest they pull out of the hardware market. In responce to this Nintendo just points out their pulling profits, making great games, and they have a ton of money to keep the company running should that need be. Apple kind of seems similar to me. They don't dominate the market or anything, they stick with what has more or less worked for them. At the same time I applaud them for not following the similar path that I've seen with major PC vendors Dell and Gateway.

    As commented before, Dell and Gateway are branching out into other things. Printers, Cameras (crappy ones I might add gateway...), the tvs, etc. etc. etc. And as a result you do see a steady decrease in the quality of their product over the years. When I was in high school I never saw a problem with dell or gateway. Their systems were stable. Now I'm in my Junior year of college, I have had oh... three friends with Dells and one with a gateway. So far every dell has had a major problem from this strange sound that made you think someone was grinding the hard drive, to hard drive failure, and the gateway has just had issues to tell you the truth. In just about four short years two companies I considered great went to... well what I honestly would consider crap.

    Companies like dell and gateway face similar problems that microsoft faces; their large companies and they need to keep those profits up. And apparently the only way to accomplish that is release a lot of little dinky products that can make a quick buck, while also releasing crappy computers to the consumer market.

    If Apple did split apart and try to gain a large part of the market share you would see a large drop in the quality of their product. They wouldn't be what makes them macintosh, and heck I'm still a PC user and I can see that.

    Seeing as I've rambled on long enough I'll just stop with this. If Macintosh expands rapidly they'll be forced to look only at making a buck and not delivering quality products to their consumers and they would become another microsoft. I would like to see them expand too, and actually be upgradable like a PC (go out, buy 50-100 CPU and 50-100 ram and bam, big performance increase, or 200 for videocard and just wow) but if that happened, and their user base expanded, unless they expanded with it accordingly the quality and their 'appleness' would degrade with the increase in size.
  25. macrumors 68020


    Dec 3, 2003
    Southeastern Louisiana
    I've used that analogy for a while now, where Nintendo tends to be like Apple: Less, but better, where Sony is like the PC world: more, but more crap to wade through to find the good stuff.

Share This Page