Apple Computers > Apple Inc.

[asphalt-proof]

A couple of things have been burning my brain lately.
1. Apple's change in name
2. No computer announcements this past MWSF.

Last night, in a fevered dream I had an epiphany.

Apple is going to let other computer manufacturer's use OSX.

One minute: (Zip up flame suit)
Ok, I'm back now.

Anyway, it makes sense (at least at 3:00 am.)
Apple is moving into the comsumer electronics arena with a vengeance. They want to be the next Sony without the crappy designs. Apple is changing their focus from being a computer manufacturer to being a consumer electronic giant. The profits from iPods, Apple TV, and the iPhone will make up for any losses they may see from computer hardware. Margins are typically higher on consumer products than on computer hardware. They will no longer have to rely on the profits generated by computer hardware and can afford to licence out OSX to other manufacturers. Why would they do this? To create an even larger base of for their consumer gadgets. Now someone can buy a Dell (God forbid!) with OSX and SEEMLESSLY integrate AppleTV into it. Could this be one of the top-secret features of Leopard? Is this the advent of a new dawn in computing? Should I stop drinking NyQuel before going to bed?

 

[NotFound]

A good thought, but I don't think it will happen.


All I have ever heard from Apple is "great software companies make the hardware to go with it"


I see this change a lot like the change from iTunes Music Store to iTunes STORE... a name change to accomodate the product sold is as deep as it will go.

 

[adrianblaine]

My opinion is they are just branching out, not necessarily getting rid of anything. Like the quote Steve said during the Keynote, they are making their own hardware because they are serious about software. If anything it makes it even less likely they will just hand OS X out to other manufacturers. Besides, it is iTunes that runs Apple TV, not OS X. You will be able to run Apple TV just as well with a PC as with a Mac.

 

[4np]

Actually, if OS X will really be available for other computer constructors (I did see that dell site but I have not yet heard any OS X laptops have been shipped) my guess is that it will only be for computers that cannot be expanded/modified (hence laptops). Why? Because of the philosophy of OS X; it has to work and an end user should not have to go through trouble to get his computer up and running (read: driver nightmare). The OS X delivered with a laptop will have custom made drivers for that particular hardware setup so it will always work properly.

Because of this reason I don't think we will ever see OS X being massively licensed to other constructors. Apple stands for quality, design and usability and if other constructors mess things up with bad support and driver hell it will reflect on Apple and that is definately not what Apple wants

As far as the name change goes; this is because Apple is not solely about computers anymore. They will keep building great computers but they will broaden their view and also work on different markets where they think they can make a difference. As Steve Jobs said; the phone was a device they knew they could reinvent. Probably there are much more devices out there that can be also be reinvented by Apple.

 

[RBMaraman]

I actually think the name change has something do to with a settlement related to the lawsuits with the Beatles and Apple Corps.

Don't be suprised if, within the next few weeks, both sides announced that they've reached a settlement on all litigation.

 

[4np]

I actually think the name change has something do to with a settlement related to the lawsuits with the Beatles and Apple Corps.

Don't be suprised if, within the next few weeks, both sides announced that they've reached a settlement on all litigation.

Hmmm. could be but I doubt it. The lawsuits were about Apple (Inc) going with iTunes in the music bussiness while Apple (label) and Apple (Inc) had agreed that music would be the field of Apple (label) (this is getting complicated ). The name change from Apple Computer to Apple Inc does not say anything about music. If you want to relate it to Apple (label) I think it's even a decission that makes things more difficult than that it resolves matters because Apple Inc is a much broader name than Apple Computers...

 

[iW00t]

Only if Steve dies...

... even then Steve has kids.

I really don't see Apple licensing OSX to other companies as long as Steve is still around. That man is a perfectionist and a control freak, good for us, bad for everyone else.

 

[Maxwell Smart]

While I see what you're saying, I don't think apple would ever let other manufactuers install OS X. They want too tight of an integration between hardware and software to let that happen.

 

[RacerX]

Apple is going to let other computer manufacturer's use OSX.

Well, ask yourself this question... If you were in charge of Apple, would you throw away millions of dollars of profit?

Apple would need to sell between 4 to 8 copies of Mac OS X for PCs for every Apple computer they don't sell because someone bought a PC instead. Even the rosiest of estimates would only have Mac OS X market share jumping to 10% if it was opened to other PC hardware... that is a drop in profits of almost 70%.

Would you do something like that? I don't think anyone would be willing to give up around 70% of their income from a highly profitable business, and that would be what Apple stands to lose if they do what you are talking about.

Apple's computer business is very profitable. Just because they are making a profit on other things doesn't mean that you throw away a proven money maker.

Should I stop drinking NyQuel before going to bed?

If it impairs your logic to this degree... it might be a good thing to avoid in the future.

 

[dmw007]

I doubt that Apple will do this, but only the future will truly tell. Heck, a few years ago, almost everyone would have agreed that Macs would never use Intel processors....and here were are today.

 

[yojitani]

As popular as apple's computers are becoming, I doubt it. It would be a shame, really, if apple did do something like this. Moves into the mass-mass market typically entail serious decline in quality..

YT

 

[Josh396]

I'll just keep it simple... Not gonna happen.

 

[iW00t]

As popular as apple's computers are becoming, I doubt it. It would be a shame, really, if apple did do something like this. Moves into the mass-mass market typically entail serious decline in quality..

YT

Not really, it is software. No matter how mass market it is, it doesn't change the quality of your product since a mass manufactured bit and byte is still the same bit and byte.

 

[Silentwave]

A couple of things have been burning my brain lately.
1. Apple's change in name
2. No computer announcements this past MWSF.

Last night, in a fevered dream I had an epiphany.

Apple is going to let other computer manufacturer's use OSX.

Yeah. They will. Especially considering how mac sales took off like a rocket in the past year- zooming upwards in marketshare and popularity.

The fact that no major upgrades from Intel were available in significant enough numbers and at appropriate price points to warrant upgrading the systems had Nothing to do with it.

 

[brad.c]

Remember

People who are really serious about software should make their own hardware
- Alan Kay

I doubt Apple will license OSX --at least the full desktop version-- anytime soon. I'll bet Steve's vision (in part) is a soup-to-nuts offering of consumer products that enjoy a controlled design environment, based around a Mac hub.

Sure Apple will need to provide cross platform compatability, but pushing the "it just works" message promotes brand loyalty across multiple product lines. Why pollute the message by risking third party development?

 

[MacVault]

I thought the same thing when Steve said "computer" would be dropped from their name. With the potential increase in market share possibly gained by opening OS X up to other manufacturers would Apple not be making many times more $$$ than what they currently make from selling their hardware??? Microsoft does it this way. Why couldn't Apple? Apple wouldn't have to cease manufacturing their own hardware. Just allow OS X to run on Macs AND on everything else out there. Personally I'd still buy a Mac.

Oh, except I want an inexpensive Laptop with a decent GPU so I'd have to give my money to Dell, etc. I guess Apple wants to force us to buy their neutered products.