Apple on the Brink

[greatdevourer]

That was only after NeXT gave up on building hardware. Prior to that NeXTStep only ran on NeXT boxes.

It could happen again but who is going to buy Apple when it does?

Read the post above you. You see, I think about these things

And keep on saying it my friend, as much as you wish. You're still wrong. The first day Apple licenses OS X is the first day of Apple's death. From day 1 the Mac has always been a package deal. One company sells the hardware and the software. When Apple tried to do otherwise with the likes of Motorola, UMAX, Power Computing etc. it almost killed them.

Again, it is very possible to both sell software and hardware, by tying certain apps and features to the hardware. That way, if people want to use Logic Pro instead of Logic Express, or Final Cut Pro instead of iMovie, they have to use Apple hardware

 

[feakbeak]

<snip>

I agree with you on most of your points - I just have two things to add. One is that Michael Dell has already expressed interest in OEM'ing OS X.

Secondly, I think there is a decent segment of Windows users who are actively seeking alternatives due to the headache and maintenance of viruses and adware/spyware. Linux will work for people who do not mind putting in some effort. However, for typical consumers they don't want to know about what distro they should use or where they need to get the latest build of software, etc. Linux is not nearly as easy as Windows or OS X to install and configure. I think Linux turns off users by the complexity of installing and configuring it how you want it. I think OS X turns people off because they would need to change their hardware and they are afraid of incompatibilities. Apple's switch to x86 eliminates the need for new hardware (potentially). Plus, hopefully the general public will begin to realize that document formats are becoming more generic with the push in recent years for abstracting data with XML/metadata and that the problem of incompatible file types is not nearly as bad as it used to be. Most general consumer apps now use doucment types that will work across most platforms.

 

[Josh]

And keep on saying it my friend, as much as you wish. You're still wrong. The first day Apple licenses OS X is the first day of Apple's death. From day 1 the Mac has always been a package deal. One company sells the hardware and the software. When Apple tried to do otherwise with the likes of Motorola, UMAX, Power Computing etc. it almost killed them.

Oh, and as far as Dvorak is concerned, he's a f***ing clown.

I will say it again - just like I said it was only a matter of time before Mac went Intel (and no one believed me then either - everyone said "It will kill Apple!").

The simple fact of the matter is that Apple will never increase market share via hardware sales. It's difficult enough to get people to switch software - do you honestly expect they are going to switch hardware too? Not likely.

The reason more people don't use macs isn't because macs aren't good, or that people don't like them. It's because the majority of computer users can't afford to buy a completely new machine to run OS X. They want to, but can't afford to.

Once they can run OS X on the machines they already have, they will. Instead of a small group of people able to buy expensive machines to run OS X, you will have a LARGE group of people buying OS X for $129 for their current systems.

Not only will Apple still make money (no less than before), market share will go up big time.

Let's face it: No one uses Windows because "they want to." They use it because it's what they can afford to. Detach OS X from the hardware, and you have a rock solid system than anyone can have, and it's the system everyone wants.

Have you ever seen anyone get excited about looking through a Dell catalog? Chances are, no. But look at people young and old marvel at OS X with excitement. People want it.

Apple thought they could force people to buy their expensive hardware by making it proprietary. Although they made money, it wasn't because a lot of people liked it this way. It was because the low number of machines that are bought are expensive machines.

Even though the unit price of OS X is cheaper than an entire computer Apple will make more money by selling to a massively larger market.

Expensive product X Small Group = A lot of money.

Inexpensive product X Large group = A lot of money.

The only difference is instead of a few paying a lot, you have many paying a little.

It will happen. And the only thing that will kill Apple is staying proprietary. This isn't the 80's. People are much more independent and wan't there things to use however they wish. Proprietary computer systems have no place in the home anymore.

 

[Mr.Hostility]

I can see this happening, and I'm coming to believe it wouldn't be such a bad thing for Apple hardware sales. I love my PowerBook as much as the OS that it runs, and can't imagine ever buying a POS Dell even if it did run the Mac OS. Yes, there'd be plenty of folks who'd buy cheapo hardware, and some of them would even be from the group of current Mac users. But I bet the gains would outweigh the losses in time.

Perfect! This is what I've been saying since I heard of the Intel chips. This would be a great way, and perhaps the only way, for apple to capture the desktop market. They have to realize you guys will still buy up their hardware, and there will be certain advantages to getting their stuff.

When I bought my Mini, I got it because;
1. A Mac for a secondary computer was FINALLY affordable
2. I wanted to use OS X, as I always thought it was a slick OS
3. The design was just awesome, something Apple has always had going for them

If OS X was available for any PC, I would have probably tried it out on my Windows machine, then bought the Mini anyway, because it's awesome looking.

 

[DavidLeblond]

Sure it would. OS X running on a low-end Gateway would be terrible performance...

Running ANYTHING on a low-end gateway would be terrible performance. Thats why we have system requirements.

This won't happen. It will kill hardware sales, really.

Thanks for disagreeing with me and then restating my point. Anyway, yes it would potentially kill hardware sales but it sure as hell would boost software sales. Now, which of the two has a bigger profit margin... hmmm...

 

[cubist]

Do you guys remember when NeXTSTEP hit the streets? The grandfather of OS X ran on all these boxes:

ALR
ALTIMA
AST
...

I'm sure it ran on a lot of boxes... but when I tried to install it, it supported only a couple of video cards and exactly one SCSI host adapter. If you didn't have a completely supported configuration, it crashed really badly.

Even the motherboard chipset had to be a supported configuration. I have no problem with Apple licensing the OS under similar terms. The OEM will have to write any necessary drivers, and support them. In addition, if video card drivers want to write any necessary drivers and support them, more power to them.

If end users want to pay $129 to Apple and try to run the OS on a non-supported configuration, I don't see why Apple shouldn't take their money either. Why, they do so now...

 

[michaelrjohnson]

Detach OS X from the hardware, and you have a rock solid system than anyone can have, and it's the system everyone wants.

It's only as rock-solid as it is because Apple controls both hardware and software. It's the inherent flaw in that arguement. It's a big catch-22.

 

[jayscheuerle]

The simple fact of the matter is that Apple will never increase market share via hardware sales. It's difficult enough to get people to switch software - do you honestly expect they are going to switch hardware too? Not likely.

You make the mistake of thinking that Apple (Steve Jobs) is concerned with market share. Sure, there's a critical point which they can't drop below, but what Apple is about has a large part to do with image and brand. OSX on an ordinary PC would remove that. OSX will be tied to Macs and Macs will always ship with a Mac OS.

If you're not willing to pay for an Apple machine, Steve doesn't want you. You'd tarnish the image of his company, take away its luster, lower its class. Apples aren't for everybody and everybody isn't for Apple.

 

[feakbeak]

Oh no, the Mac Elitists. I thought the fact that Apple has released the Mac Mini and the iPod Shuffle would have indicated that as a company Apple is trying to become more mass market than some of the Apple fanbase would like to admit. Trust me, Steve wants your money - he doesn't care who the f*ck you are.

 

[michaelrjohnson]

Oh no, the Mac Elitists.

Me? No.

Just call me the Devil's Advocate.

 

[feakbeak]

Me? No.

Just call me the Devil's Advocate.

No, not you. I was responding to this comment.

If you're not willing to pay for an Apple machine, Steve doesn't want you. You'd tarnish the image of his company, take away its luster, lower its class. Apples aren't for everybody and everybody isn't for Apple.

 

[FoxyKaye]

if something like this happened, and OSX became widely used on x86 machines, manufacturers would design their hardware in a way that ensured compatability - the market would demand it.

I don't think the market would demand it, though. I could see companies washing their hands of OS X because developing appropriate hardware and drivers would be too much a PITA. Gods know they do it anyway... Apple doesn't have that kind of leverage in the market right now. For example, they can't say to every graphics card company, "support Core Video or else" and have the same effectiveness as M$ would by saying "support Active X or else."

One scenario I could see is Apple partnering with specific PC companies (Dell, Gateway 2000, HP, or whomever) so that the PC company manufactures a box that meets Apple's stringent guidelines for compliance with OS X. To me, this is more of a win-win since a PC company could offer customers a real choice in OSes (since any Intel/AMD box that was built to run OS X would also be able to run Windows), and Apple makes money from licensing OS X. In other words, the version of OS X that comes with a Compaq PC wouldn't install on any other PC, namebrand or white-box.

 

[Lacero]

Agreed. Apple has a shot now at becoming the dominant OS supplier. In a short 8 years since his return to a nearly bankrupt company, Jobs has managed to do the impossible.

 

[michaelrjohnson]

No, not you. I was responding to this comment.

Ah, I understand...

...either way...

 

[pimentoLoaf]

The more I read of this Dvorak fellow, the more he sounds like a fifteen year old ...

Dvorak has quite a number of industry contacts primarily due to his being in the IT media industry for over 25 years. He's seen quite alot, and though he is indeed rather brash with his opinions, he is extremely well regarded.

Though... he's frequently misguided about Apple.

 

[7on]

I agree with you on most of your points - I just have two things to add. One is that Michael Dell has already expressed interest in OEM'ing OS X.

Secondly, I think there is a decent segment of Windows users who are actively seeking alternatives due to the headache and maintenance of viruses and adware/spyware. Linux will work for people who do not mind putting in some effort. However, for typical consumers they don't want to know about what distro they should use or where they need to get the latest build of software, etc. Linux is not nearly as easy as Windows or OS X to install and configure. I think Linux turns off users by the complexity of installing and configuring it how you want it. I think OS X turns people off because they would need to change their hardware and they are afraid of incompatibilities. Apple's switch to x86 eliminates the need for new hardware (potentially). Plus, hopefully the general public will begin to realize that document formats are becoming more generic with the push in recent years for abstracting data with XML/metadata and that the problem of incompatible file types is not nearly as bad as it used to be. Most general consumer apps now use doucment types that will work across most platforms.

I disagree with the decent segment - the numbers just don't prove it. When Windows has about 95% of the market in their favor it shows the lack of interest by the common man to look for alternatives. When I say "decent segment" I am referring to a sustainable amount which would make an OEM OSX profitable. Right now, it would hurt Apple more than help. Now, I'm not saying that Apple should never OEM - they will eventually - but they have to secure their market space first. I'd say Apple would have at least a 25% market share DOING THEIR CURRENT STRATEGY before I'd even argue that they should start OEMing their OS. Doing so at 5% for minimal sales at most (honestly the only people I see buying an OEM x86 would be current Mac owners wanting to install it on a 2nd PC they had - most people who never owned a Mac would, I guarantee you, pirate it) would be suicidal.

You can install SuSE in one click by the way - why doesn't this "decent segment" of people looking for alternatives be using something like SuSE or Xandos or Lindows?

And Dell is just one OEM - and if they do decide on doing that, they still shouldn't release an OEM and OSX Dell boxes on the same day. They should only sell the OS with the machines first, and if that works and the market share is up then release the OEM.

Most people who want OEMs are the Mac users who'd buy it for their 2nd PCs... the current Windows users would just pirate it.

...And only one distributor (Dell) is not enough to gain a foothold in the market - maybe if Dell went exclusively to OSX, but that's another tale.

 

[jayscheuerle]

Oh no, the Mac Elitists. I thought the fact that Apple has released the Mac Mini and the iPod Shuffle would have indicated that as a company Apple is trying to become more mass market than some of the Apple fanbase would like to admit. Trust me, Steve wants your money - he doesn't care who the f*ck you are.

Mercedes wants your money too, but not at the expense of delivering a crappy product.

 

[aquajet]

The simple fact of the matter is that Apple will never increase market share via hardware sales. It's difficult enough to get people to switch software - do you honestly expect they are going to switch hardware too? Not likely.

Yes, I do. Anybody who buys a computer will replace it eventually. And when they do, they can buy a Mac. But only if Apple can convince them.

The reason more people don't use macs isn't because macs aren't good, or that people don't like them. It's because the majority of computer users can't afford to buy a completely new machine to run OS X. They want to, but can't afford to.

No, people don't use Macs because they aren't what everybody else uses. 95% of the computing world uses Windows. Windows is the status quo.

Once they can run OS X on the machines they already have, they will. Instead of a small group of people able to buy expensive machines to run OS X, you will have a LARGE group of people buying OS X for $129 for their current systems.

Lots of people have said this, and I can't understand why. I don't believe that just because Dell (or whoever) offers a popup menu that offers Mac OS X on their system configuration page that huge masses of computer buyers will switch. Like I said before, people use Windows because it is the status quo.

Let's face it: No one uses Windows because "they want to." They use it because it's what they can afford to. Detach OS X from the hardware, and you have a rock solid system than anyone can have, and it's the system everyone wants.

Post some figures here. Let's see the differences in the numbers. There was a time when this was correct, but not anymore.

It will happen. And the only thing that will kill Apple is staying proprietary. This isn't the 80's. People are much more independent and wan't there things to use however they wish. Proprietary computer systems have no place in the home anymore.

I don't understand how Apple is proprietary and others are not. Apple uses industry standard parts in their computers just like everybody else. People can use their Macs as they wish.

 

[applemacdude]

remember the clones? they almost killed apple back in the day....

 

[feakbeak]

Mercedes wants your money too, but not at the expense of delivering a crappy product.

Apple sells a $99 MP3 player and a $500 computer - that is mass market. Mercedes doesn't sell cars for the same price as KIA.

Apple used to price Macs out of reach of many consumers, but those days are over. Apple now offers many Macs that are easily affordable to the average consumer. You don't have to like it, but it's a fact.

 

[Cooknn]

remember the clones? they almost killed apple back in the day....

Wasn't that before OS X? Different ball game now. Everyone wants what we have - even though most of them don't even realize it's OS X. I take every opportunity to educate my associates regarding its stability and ease of use. That combined with the fact that they won't have to worry about all the critical flaws that go hand in hand with Microsoft's Windows makes it an easy sell.

It's all about the OS as far as I'm concerned I've done the math though, and I can't see how Apple could make the kind of bank they're making now by just licensing the OS. It would have to be a combination of an OEM OS X and great Apple hardware that kept the faithfull waiting with bated breath and credit card in hand...

 

[jayscheuerle]

Apple sells a $99 MP3 player and a $500 computer - that is mass market. Mercedes doesn't sell cars for the same price as KIA.

Apple used to price Macs out of reach of many consumers, but those days are over. Apple now offers many Macs that are easily affordable to the average consumer. You don't have to like it, but it's a fact.

You're missing the point. The Mac Mini may be $500, but it's a stylish, inherently Apple $500 computer. It's part of the classy and functional Mac experience. Package deal here. Apple's not going to break it up. I like the fact that Apple sells the Mini. I'm working on one now.

Truth is, OSX isn't THAT much better than XP, but it looks it. Macs aren't ANY better than PCs, but they look it. The only thing that makes the Mac experience exceptional is the combination of the two, both in terms of the visual experience and the practical experience of having hardware and software tied together.

Offering OSX on generic PCs will kill Apple's soul. It's not going to happen, and that's a fact.

Won't kill you to wish though as long as you're not holding your breath. Knock yourself out.

 

[feakbeak]

You're missing the point. The Mac Mini may be $500, but it's a stylish, inherently Apple $500 computer. It's part of the classy and functional Mac experience. Package deal here. Apple's not going to break it up. I like the fact that Apple sells the Mini. I'm working on one now.

Truth is, OSX isn't THAT much better than XP, but it looks it. Macs aren't ANY better than PCs, but they look it. The only thing that makes the Mac experience exceptional is the combination of the two, both in terms of the visual experience and the practical experience of having hardware and software tied together.

Offering OSX on generic PCs will kill Apple's soul. It's not going to happen, and that's a fact.

Won't kill you to wish though as long as you're not holding your breath. Knock yourself out.

I can see some of your points. I disagree with you on the impact of Apple releasing OS X into the wild though. I do not believe it would destroy their soul, as you say. It may weaken their image in terms of design, but I don't think by much because Apple designed Macs would always be well designed.

While I agree OS X isn't that much better than Windows XP. Aside from better security (be it by design or by obscurity), I think they are just different OSes more than anything. I think more compelling than OS X is the other bundled software - all the iApps, particularly iLife that would be desired by consumers. I know that was a big factor in my decision to buy a Mac. To be honest, I could've cared less about the hardware, I wanted to play with and learn OS X and I wanted to use iLife and some other iApps. If i could have dual-booted by PC I would have. I like the design of my Mac Mini but it is not why I bought a Mac. There are others who buy Macs more for the design than for the software - just two different types of consumers. I think Apple could sell OS X and/or iApps aside from Macs and still do fine sellings Macs with the design/quality strengths.

Only time will tell who is right, but I am hoping I'll get OS X on a generic x86 box one day. Apple may not release it, but I'm fairly confident I'll get it installed on a normal PC because once Apple moves to x86 it is only a matter of time before it gets hacked.

 

[NicP]

I will say it again - just like I said it was only a matter of time before Mac went Intel (and no one believed me then either - everyone said "It will kill Apple!").

The simple fact of the matter is that Apple will never increase market share via hardware sales. It's difficult enough to get people to switch software - do you honestly expect they are going to switch hardware too? Not likely.

The reason more people don't use macs isn't because macs aren't good, or that people don't like them. It's because the majority of computer users can't afford to buy a completely new machine to run OS X. They want to, but can't afford to.

Once they can run OS X on the machines they already have, they will. Instead of a small group of people able to buy expensive machines to run OS X, you will have a LARGE group of people buying OS X for $129 for their current systems.

Not only will Apple still make money (no less than before), market share will go up big time.

Let's face it: No one uses Windows because "they want to." They use it because it's what they can afford to. Detach OS X from the hardware, and you have a rock solid system than anyone can have, and it's the system everyone wants.

Have you ever seen anyone get excited about looking through a Dell catalog? Chances are, no. But look at people young and old marvel at OS X with excitement. People want it.

Apple thought they could force people to buy their expensive hardware by making it proprietary. Although they made money, it wasn't because a lot of people liked it this way. It was because the low number of machines that are bought are expensive machines.

Even though the unit price of OS X is cheaper than an entire computer Apple will make more money by selling to a massively larger market.

Expensive product X Small Group = A lot of money.

Inexpensive product X Large group = A lot of money.

The only difference is instead of a few paying a lot, you have many paying a little.

It will happen. And the only thing that will kill Apple is staying proprietary. This isn't the 80's. People are much more independent and wan't there things to use however they wish. Proprietary computer systems have no place in the home anymore.

Pleanty of people prefer windows, and pleanty of people get excited looking through a dell catalogue, hey i love the 24" LCDS i'd take one of those over an Apple. Heaps of people dont even know there are alternatives to windows they think windows is the computer.

I disagree that apple wont gain marketshare by selling a hardware-software combo, most people think the solution to their borked windows box is to buy a new one, dont laugh, its true!

 

[cleanup]

I think releasing Mac OSX for generic x86 hardware would be a good move for Apple. Although, I am assuming that this licensed version of OSX will support and work on at least most x86 hardware and configurations, and would have nearly the same type of stability and plug-and-play support as a Mac running OSX would.

Provided that Apple overcomes those hurdles, Apple hardware sales aren't likely to fall. Apple's fanbase will still likely turn out a few extra dollars to buy a Mac to run OSX instead of build their own PC to run OSX, and the fanbase will likely increase with more and more people being introduced to OSX, Apple, and then being drawn to the beauty, style, and elegance of Macintosh computers. The common Windows user does not know very much about Macs (or perhaps not at all), but as more and more people being using OSX, Apple's popularity among the common PC user will increase. Joe Schmoe will see his friend using OSX, look it up on Google, visit Apple's site, and learn about Macintosh computers, and perhaps even purchase one. Grandma Simpson, Uncle John Doe and Aunt Jane Doe will all learn about Macs through recognizing the brand name behind OSX.

Getting OSX out there distributed with retail x86 machines that common, everyday, family computer users often buy (like Dell, Gateway, HP, etc.) will help spread the Apple brand name.

But either way, as long as I can still run OSX on a computer that has an Apple logo on it, I'm happy.