Apple, the iPod, the Mac and the Future

[FoxyKaye]

...The other side of the coin, however, running Windows native on Macs WILL sell more boxes. Apple's hardware is no longer appreciably more expensive than PC counterparts, but the quality is head-and-shoulders above the rest. Either current solution will suffice as I see it, running a dual boot with either OS X or XP, or the more elegant option of virtual machines running at or near native.

It's a good day to be among the Mac Faithful...

Z

Good counterpoint, though this hinges on Apple offering an easy way to install any version of Windows on a Mac, which they're currently not doing. Although promising, the WinXP installations on the Intel Macs are way, way above the experience and comfort level of the everyday user.

And, it would also depend on vendors offering drivers for their video cards and other hardware that are built for Windows and yet compatible with their "Mac edition" hardware counterparts that are ordinarily available over the counter for PCs. It places a heck of a burden on either the open source community or vendors (or Apple, which it probably won't do) to keep these kinds of specialized drivers up to date. For example, the Win on Mac projects are completely stymied getting proper drivers for GFX cards built for Macs to support both OpenGL and DirectX. Otherwise, there will be a lot of ROM flashing going on...

I don't know if I agree that licensing out OS X would be bad for Apple, though I'm pretty ambivalent on the topic, though, so I can't really say why I feel this way.

Though, perhaps you're right that Apple has learned the lesson of selling at a loss for market share - I just fear that Jobs still has a lot of blind spots with regard to what will actually make money down the road, regardless of the innovation he pushes.

[Edit]: And yes, it is a good day to be among the Mac Faithful

[Edit 2]: It *would* be lovely though to see a virtual near-native speed machine built into Leopard (which has been rumored), or released through M$ (who I suspect is dragging its feet on the next version of VPC because it sees this threat).

 

[jbernie]

Apple can't rely on people switching to OSX to increase market share, there is a large business market that won't switch period, likewise there is a large consumer market that won't switch.

Give them a stylish pc that runs Windows. They will sell hardware like they do iPods. I won't debate which OS is better, for the most part it is too subjective, but a lot of people would love Apple's hardware running Windows.

And if you know how executives are, they all want the latest greatest coolest looking computers, along with lawyers. It gives the you the market of people who aren't allowed to run anything other than windows but can have any computer that runs it.

Ultimately it comes down to how much compromising Apple wants to do. Surely there is more profit in the hardware than the software.

 

[Eraserhead]

Apple can't rely on people switching to OSX to increase market share, there is a large business market that won't switch period, likewise there is a large consumer market that won't switch.

I agree that the 20% of PC users who are gamers won't switch (unless they can still run XP) but Business??? when Forbes/Business Week have been writing what they have this week. OK so it costs buisiness to switch (as they need new app's etc. etc.) but seeing as they have to spend a lot of money on keeping windows running (up to $1000 per year) and Vista is overblown and requires a stupidly high spec PC why not switch? as far as they can see it will take MS *at least* 5 more years to get Windows secure, where OS X already is.

 

[boncellis]

...I don't know if I agree that licensing out OS X would be bad for Apple, though I'm pretty ambivalent on the topic, though, so I can't really say why I feel this way.

Let me begin by saying that I feel honored to quote the fabulous FoxyKaye.

I too am ambivalent, as you aptly put it, on the possibility of OS X on hardware other than Apple computers. I was left in the lurch by my previous notebook at the end of last semester (during finals) and forced to replace it at short order. I had a decision to make, to settle on the Powerbook or go with the Lenovo at half the price. Well, that decision took about 4 minutes of my life that I will never get back, but I have absolutely no remorse for having chosen the Powerbook. After some thought on the subject, I have been able to label my unconscious desire for a new Macintosh as 80/20 operating system to hardware.

Would I have gone with another notebook if it were licensed to run OS X? I would like to say that I would have in order to save the money, but I can't really say. There is a cachet to all Apple products that lends itself to my own experience through some osmosis. Should OS X eventually be licensed out to other manufacturers, I don't think it would hurt Apple sales too significantly.

That's just my experience.

 

[manu chao]

The reason why iPods have taken over the MP3 player market is because it's on Macs AND PCs.

If Mac OS X was on PC, it'd be huge.

You meant to say: '...because iPods work with Mac OS X and with Windows. If Mac OS X would run on Windows...'

People do, for a large part, not buy PCs running Windows because of the hardware (although prices do play a part) but because they run Windows and they do want to stay 'compatible'.

 

[miketcool]

Fair enough. Aren't you making the assumption that iLife would be included? I can't see Apple including iLife in OS X but rather selling it seperately. Sure you might get it with a new Mac but what if you're a PC user switching Operating Systems? Isn't that going to be a seperate cost?

One can't argue viruses because "if you build it they will come." The only reason Macs are not riddled with viruses now is because there's not much of a point. Going forward that could easily change. As for the more stable system I think you'll find that the FUD here about Windows crashes is just that, FUD. Millions of people run Windows products every day without a single crash.

If we're going to say let's push the virtues of OS X then we need to have real reasons why it's better or at least worth switching to. The reasons have to be real and can't be FUD.

iLife, that comes installed on the machine. Were not talking someone switching to OS X, were talking someone switching to Apple. You buy the box and get the benefits. I'm not gonna list all the goodies, but I found this neat webiste that can tell you in a more personal, elegant and effecient manner.

Why Apple?

 

[BenRoethig]

Why the hell do they need to keep growing? They are making healthy profits ($250 million last time i saw), so why not just make quality and innovative hardware and software and stick with your market share? Is it because the board members are a bunch of greedy bastards? Probably.

Because if they don't, what happened in 1997 could happen again. You're assuming everything will remain exactly is it is right now and everybody who buys Macs now will continue to buy Macs. That's exactly the kind of thinking that keeps getting Apple in trouble.

 

[twoodcc]

if they sold OSX86, i'd buy it, along with ilife06 and more apple software

 

[BenRoethig]

Were not talking someone switching to OS X, were talking someone switching to Apple.

And switching to Apple does not have the same appeal to everybody that it does to their crowd. They sell something different, not Necessarily better. That is why sales haven't taken off. Mac OS X the operating system has universal appeal.

 

[ScottB]

I would love Mac OS X to gain market share, not because I favour any corporation, especially a million dollar american morass like Apple but because anything is better than having to put up with a 95% Windows market share (source: http://marketshare.hitslink.com/report.aspx?qprid=2). But I'm afraid it will never work. If computer manufactuers were genuinely interested in adopting alternative operating systems they would be offering linux distributions as an option, and if anybody was actually interested in switching from their Windows machines, (which, by the way are by far the best systems for word processing and office work in my opinion) they would be running any of the other OS's available them. Instead, companies force the purchase XP with every computer and the majority of people except it (arbeit not the people who surf these forums ). Apple's support would simply not cope with the demand. Apple know this, and have always used OSX as just a selling point of their hardware, just as the iPod was originally intended as an accessory for macs.

 

[manu chao]

What I would like to know is this: What does OS X offer over Windows to the common user? I know why I like OS X but many here seem to think it's the end all be all. So why should the average computer user want to switch to OS X?

How often per week do you get a cryptic error message (like 'unknown error' or 'error 47') or have to force quit something on Windows and how often does this happen on OS X?

(+GUI, intuitivity, ...)

 

[Whistleway]

I use ibook at home and xp at work.

The so called mac experience is over-rated. Windoze just does fine too for me as well as over 90% of the world.

 

[Long]

I've always been of the understanding that Apple develops software in order to sell its hardware. Apple makes it's money on hardware, not software.

iTunes was developed to sell iPods, and Mac OSX and iLife were developed to sell Macs.

If Apple decided to license out the software, I think you'd have to see a shift in Apple's pricing model. Right now, I think you could call Apple software the loss leader. It is dirt cheap compared to your typical Windows software. And they can sell it cheap, because every person that buys Apple software has already given Apple money for hardware, and will continue to give Apple money for hardware as they upgrade their software.

If Apple had to rely on their software to make money, I think you'd see Apple software prices adjusted upwards to the same as its competition, since there's a very good chance hardware sales would go down. I could see Mac OSX going for $250.

 

[IJ Reilly]

Lest we forget, Apple was burned very badly by the first cloning experiment, and it was Steve Jobs himself who terminated it, with prejudice. I don't know why cloning is continually raised as a panacea for every issue Apple faces. In reality, there's few precedents for it, and no model for successful product cloning and several notable failures. It's simply not conventional for companies to create competitors for their own products. But that doesn't seem to prevent this suggestion from rearing its ugly head with clockwork regularity.

 

[crees!]

How does a Windows user not get that today? Just how does OS X trump Windows in this area?

Watch my father behind his Dell and that will be your answer.

 

[Whistleway]

How often per week do you get a cryptic error message (like 'unknown error' or 'error 47') or have to force quit something on Windows and how often does this happen on OS X?

Really? It hasn't happened to me on Windoze.

I agree OS X is more robust, but it is not like Windoze is giving me BSOD every other day or something. Or like zoombies and virus come and attack me or something. I have used several flavors of windows and it works too..

The point I am trying to say is, yeah os x is better. but that doesn't mean that windows suck. and windows too gets the job done. and that's why over 90% of the people still use windows.

don't get me wrong. i love macs. and my next computer will also be a mac. but, thinking mac alone gives you something so freaking special is a whole a lotta bs.

 

[BenRoethig]

I agree that the 20% of PC users who are gamers won't switch (unless they can still run XP) but Business??? when Forbes/Business Week have been writing what they have this week. OK so it costs buisiness to switch (as they need new app's etc. etc.) but seeing as they have to spend a lot of money on keeping windows running (up to $1000 per year) and Vista is overblown and requires a stupidly high spec PC why not switch? as far as they can see it will take MS *at least* 5 more years to get Windows secure, where OS X already is.

Apple's hardware isn't the kind that leads itself to business. Computers like the Dell Optiplex are popular because they give businesses exactly what they want and need. Apple could improve with the operating system and that's about it.

 

[freeny]

Wow...I would really love to purchase some apple stock..but Im not sure if this is the best time to do it. Yes I know the best time would have been a couple years back. I really hope that mac osx stays with mac hardware only.

BUY BUY BUY!
Good time to buy IMO.

Just dont expect real rewards for a bit....

 

[crees!]

I use ibook at home and xp at work.

The so called mac experience is over-rated. Windoze just does fine too for me as well as over 90% of the world.

In a controlled work environment yes.. but the normal joe-family isn't set up like this and they don't know how to do all that techie stuff unless their son/daughter/neighbor is a geek. (politely stated)

 

[BenRoethig]

Lest we forget, Apple was burned very badly by the first cloning experiment, and it was Steve Jobs himself who terminated it, with prejudice. I don't know why cloning is continually raised as a panacea for every issue Apple faces. In reality, there's few precedents for it, and no model for successful product cloning and several notable failures. It's simply not conventional for companies to create competitors for their own products. But that doesn't seem to prevent this suggestion from rearing its ugly head with clockwork regularity.

Compare Apple of then with Apple of now and you'll figure why it failed. In short, Apple didn't offer anything that couldn't be had elsewhere except a name.

 

[boncellis]

I've always been of the understanding that Apple develops software in order to sell its hardware. Apple makes it's money on hardware, not software...

...If Apple had to rely on their software to make money, I think you'd see Apple software prices adjusted upwards to the same as its competition, since there's a very good chance hardware sales would go down. I could see Mac OSX going for $250.

That is a really good point. I hadn't thought about it that way before, but I think you're absolutely right! Remember what Mr. Wosniak says about Apple being a hardware company--almost like software is an afterthought. If that is true, OS X and iLife are the computer world's best implemented afterthoughts.

 

[SpankWare]

iLife, that comes installed on the machine. Were not talking someone switching to OS X, were talking someone switching to Apple. You buy the box and get the benefits. I'm not gonna list all the goodies, but I found this neat webiste that can tell you in a more personal, elegant and effecient manner.

Why Apple?

I was, however, referring to people switching to OS X. That was the point of my initial question. The topic included licensing out OS X to PC makers and that's where I'm talking. In that case iLife would be a seperate purchase. I would bet it would be MUCH easier to get somebody to switch to OS X than it would be to Apple. Why? I can get the same spec hardware cheaper if I avoid Apple. Me personally? I don't really care for Apple hardware though I might if it was competitively priced. The MINIMUM buy in for a new user is $600 US which is for a base single core mac mini. I can build my own competitive box with more RAM and disk for $300. This is why there's a question about licensing OS X to PC makers.

 

[jbooo]

What do I think???

I have never had to struggle with installing a peripheral on a mac, same is not true with windows... especially on an OEM Dull or HP or Lenovo, etc.
I have a friend who converted from MS to Mac and while he was editing some video in iLife (iDVD) he kept asking me... where do I go to change this setting, I have looked through ALL the menu options and just can't seem to find it. I pointed to the Edit menu item and said click "here", there you go... he balked and said" geez" I feel like an ass, in MS Winblows I had to navigate through 3-4 sub-menues just to find what Mac put in "one" sub-menu". That's what I am talking about, simple, intuitive computer using experience. Windows thinks that the more sub-menues you have the more user-friendly you are... Who are they kidding???
We mac users know who...

 

[mark88]

How often per week do you get a cryptic error message (like 'unknown error' or 'error 47') or have to force quit something on Windows and how often does this happen on OS X?

(+GUI, intuitivity, ...)

I can only assume you've never used Windows XP

I've been using Windows since 95. All of my XP machines have never ever NOT ONCE given me a blue screen or some cryptic error message that I didn't understand.

Windows ME saw MS try to clear up alot of the stupid error messages that were all over 98, XP was another step in the right direction in that regard.

I have just as many apps QUIT on me in 10.4.5 than I do in XP Pro SP2

 

[SpankWare]

How often per week do you get a cryptic error message (like 'unknown error' or 'error 47') or have to force quit something on Windows and how often does this happen on OS X?

(+GUI, intuitivity, ...)

Never. I can't say i've ever seen this "error 47" you mention. Unknown errors i've seen but hey that would be application specific.

I use Windows daily and I personally don't have a single problem with the OS. Same for Linux, Solaris, and OS X. People who suggest otherwise deal in FUD. I deal in facts.