Could DRM-free Music indicate Mac OS X for PCs???

[Eraserhead]

Why, if Microsoft can make buttloads more $$$ than Apple on software alone, would Apple be worried about losing a few Mac sales to have the chance of also making buttloads of $$$$ - which should outweigh the loss in their hardware sales?.?.?

Because they don't make a lot more money.
MS's profits in 2006 were $12.6 billion, and Apple profit's last quarter were $1.04 billion, which is $4.16 billion/year.

Basically MS is only making about 3 times more profit than Apple. Yet they have a 90%+ Share of the Office Suite and Operating system market, vs. Apple's 5% share.

Now you can see why Apple doesn't want to licence it's OS, it's not actually that profitable.

 

[MacVault]

i don't think it'll happen

Then Apple will never have competition in hardware, thus Apple will have no incentive to push configurations or price. This is a bad thing for Apple's customers. A very bad thing.

 

[killmoms]

Move along, it's just MacVault beating his favorite dead horse over and over and over, as usual. Nothing to see here.

 

[MacVault]

Because they don't make a lot more money.
MS's profits in 2006 were $12.6 billion, and Apple profit's last quarter were $1.04 billion, which is $4.16 billion/year.

Basically MS is only making about 3 times more profit than Apple. Yet they have a 90%+ Share of the Office Suite and Operating system market, vs. Apple's 5% share.

Now you can see why Apple doesn't want to licence it's OS, it's not actually that profitable.

Ok, then... I'll have to decide which option to choose...
1) Bend over and take what Apple dictates just so I can use Mac OS X.
2) Switch to Windows and have more hardware options, and bend over and take it from Microsoft.

What an imperfect world Although, that's what I concluded when it came to DRM. But, whadayaknow... it looks like as of yesterday's Apple/EMI announcement I can finally stop bending over when it comes to digital music purchases!

 

[yellow]

Then Apple will never have competition in hardware, thus Apple will have no incentive to push configurations or price. This is a bad thing for Apple's customers. A very bad thing.

Why should anything change since they came into the picture 30+ years ago?

They exist in a market economy, not a business democracy.

 

[Eraserhead]

What an imperfect world

Unfortunately that's life.

 

[dpaanlka]

and as I can tell, Eye Candy is at least a large (I say 30%, for me personally, its 40%, 50% goto stability, 10% goes to hardware design) portion of OSX's attraction for many windows users who would like to try OSX.

No, that's just what they think. Once people who are not computer geeks actually try using Linux for any extended length of time (and rest assured I have tested Ubuntu on several people with PCs) they quickly become disillusioned with their inability to, like, do anything.

It fast becomes apparent what benefits Mac OS and Windows have over Linux. Usually in one month's time they're requesting a return to Windows.

Also, Eye Candy isn't that great when the GUI itself is usually pretty ghastly.

 

[clevin]

Once people who are not computer geeks actually try using Linux for any extended length of time (and rest assured I have tested Ubuntu on several people with PCs) they quickly become disillusioned with their inability to, like, do anything.

I would advise you doing some research about the topic, statement like that is untrue at best. Unless you were referring to "non computer geeks" who doesn't even know how to explore the menu bar. And in case you haven't done it, try Ubuntu 7.04 for a bit.

And Like I said, Im a person really enjoy eye candy(I know some users don't, ), and Linux's 3D UI is obviously surpass any other OSes, which is very pleasant, and for whoever enjoy eye candy, I would think they will love it as well.

 

[dpaanlka]

I would advise you doing some research about the topic, statement like that is untrue at best. Unless you were referring to "non computer geeks" who doesn't even know how to explore the menu bar. And in case you haven't done it, try Ubuntu 7.04 for a bit.

I advise you to stop fooling yourself into believing Linux is as user friendly as Windows and Mac OS. I did plenty of my own primary research - by installing Ubuntu 6 on about a half dozen of my friend's computers, none of which could get a grip with it even after a month or several months. One ended up buying a Mac, the rest went back to Windows.

I can't believe I'm even defending Windows, and I doubt Ubuntu 7 is earth-shatteringly different than Ubuntu 6.

 

[clevin]

I advise you to stop fooling yourself into believing Linux is as user friendly as Windows and Mac OS. I did plenty of my own primary research - by installing Ubuntu 6 on about a half dozen of my friend's computers, none of which could get a grip with it even after a month or several months. One ended up buying a Mac, the rest went back to Windows.

I can't believe I'm even defending Windows, and I doubt Ubuntu 7 is earth-shatteringly different than Ubuntu 6.

Im sorry you feel I can't do what you and your friend can't. and Im sorry you use your "doubt" to substitute the reality.

 

[dpaanlka]

Im sorry you feel I can't do what you and your friend can't. and Im sorry you use your "doubt" to substitute the reality.

But you aren't an average user. The amount of work and tech-savvyness required to get Linux to do stuff is way over most people's heads, and isn't worth it in the end anyway.

It is not a matter of what I can or cannot do, I should not have to physically be present every day to assist my friends with configuring Linux for every single simple task they want to perform that they could easily accomplish with Windows and Mac OS.

Using Linux is like using a Rube Goldberg Machine.

 

[longofest]

Noticing a bit of a two-way debate going on, in which it got a little heated. Try to keep things cool guys (both of you).

 

[clevin]

Noticing a bit of a two-way debate going on, in which it got a little heated. Try to keep things cool guys (both of you).

interesting observation. I think I offered all my opinions, so Im sure I will say nothing further here. since i can't think of anything else constructive, lol, take care

 

[cayley]

Because they don't make a lot more money.
MS's profits in 2006 were $12.6 billion, and Apple profit's last quarter were $1.04 billion, which is $4.16 billion/year.

Basically MS is only making about 3 times more profit than Apple. Yet they have a 90%+ Share of the Office Suite and Operating system market, vs. Apple's 5% share.

Now you can see why Apple doesn't want to licence it's OS, it's not actually that profitable.

It's a big mistake to assume that Apple's yearly profit is just it's latest quarterly profit x 4, especially given that that quarter included the holiday shopping season.

Past 4 quarters (billions)
Apple's Net Income: 1.0, 0.54, 0.47, 0.41
Micro's Net Income: 2.6, 3.5, 2.8, 3.0

By this measure, Microsoft is almost 5 times more profitable.

 

[dpaanlka]

It's a big mistake to assume that Apple's yearly profit is just it's latest quarterly profit x 4, especially given that that quarter included the holiday shopping season.

Past 4 quarters (billions)
Apple's Net Income: 1.0, 0.54, 0.47, 0.41
Micro's Net Income: 2.6, 3.5, 2.8, 3.0

By this measure, Microsoft is almost 5 times more profitable.

I think his point is that, it's not 20x more profitable, which given it's market share, it should be. I don't know if that's really a valid argument anyways. Apple is a completely different company than Microsoft. Apple is a hardware manufacturer, Microsoft is not.

 

[cayley]

I think his point is that, it's not 20x more profitable, which given it's market share, it should be. I don't know if that's really a valid argument anyways. Apple is a completely different company than Microsoft. Apple is a hardware manufacturer, Microsoft is not.

Agreed. And Apple has a literal cash-cow with iPods.

 

[GFLPraxis]

Drum Roll please....
The connection is simple...

Apple is not concerned about declining sales of iPods now that they've told DRM to go to hell - the DRM that locks the songs to play only on an iPod (or computer).

So... Why would they be concerned about declining sales of Mac hardware if they were to tell the hardware lockin in Mac OS X to go to hell..??

Steve was asked that question and he said he doesn't see the connection.

90% of music out there is already available DRM-free and the majority of music comes from CD's, not iTunes. The reality is that anyone who wanted DRM-free music could already get it, easily, and conveniently, with a download or walking into a nearby store.

At this point, anyone who wants OS X on a PC can not get it easily or conveniently. Not the same situation.

Also, I don't believe Mac OS X is truly hardware-locked; it's just designed to run on EFI, and they didn't design the OS to run on BIOS. PCs use BIOS, Macs use EFI.

 

[GFLPraxis]

maybe naive, but thats exactly what I imagine for the future of OSX. Linux's eye candy will surpass other OSes soon, and it can actually runs on just (little bit less than windows) about anything. OSX needs to make strategic bold move soon.

But in all honestly, Linux is a pain to set up. Driver problems galore.

Apple would sacrifice the type of ease of use they are famous for.

 

[Eraserhead]

It's a big mistake to assume that Apple's yearly profit is just it's latest quarterly profit x 4, especially given that that quarter included the holiday shopping season.

Past 4 quarters (billions)
Apple's Net Income: 1.0, 0.54, 0.47, 0.41
Micro's Net Income: 2.6, 3.5, 2.8, 3.0

By this measure, Microsoft is almost 5 times more profitable.

Seeing as Apple's profit is going up as they are growing I thought the last quarter was the best comparison, if you do that quarter for quarter then MS is only 2.6 times bigger :shrug:.

Also remember MS has a cash cow with Windows/Office too.

 

[MacVault]

Steve was asked that question and he said he doesn't see the connection.

90% of music out there is already available DRM-free and the majority of music comes from CD's, not iTunes. The reality is that anyone who wanted DRM-free music could already get it, easily, and conveniently, with a download or walking into a nearby store.

At this point, anyone who wants OS X on a PC can not get it easily or conveniently. Not the same situation.

That's sad, because that's the wrong motivation. ie: the "right" reason to have removed DRM from music is because that's what we consumers really want. They should not have done it just because it's sold in unprotected form on CDs.

Also, I don't believe Mac OS X is truly hardware-locked; it's just designed to run on EFI, and they didn't design the OS to run on BIOS. PCs use BIOS, Macs use EFI.

Seems like it would be a lot easier to get Mac OS X to run on PC hardware if it just needs EFI. Seems like somehow I could build an EFI machine or find one from a vendor. EFI is not exclusive to Apple, is it?

 

[j26]

It's a big mistake to assume that Apple's yearly profit is just it's latest quarterly profit x 4, especially given that that quarter included the holiday shopping season.

Past 4 quarters (billions)
Apple's Net Income: 1.0, 0.54, 0.47, 0.41
Micro's Net Income: 2.6, 3.5, 2.8, 3.0

By this measure, Microsoft is almost 5 times more profitable.

MS is firing huge amounts of money at Zune and XBox, so I'm sure the profitability of the OS is much higher.

Although to counter that, Apple makes a significant portion of its profits from iPods, so the entire comparison is flawed really.

 

[cayley]

Seeing as Apple's profit is going up as they are growing I thought the last quarter was the best comparison, if you do that quarter for quarter then MS is only 2.6 times bigger :shrug:.

Also remember MS has a cash cow with Windows/Office too.

How we choose the numbers definitely can distort views. But given Apple is much, much more consumer oriented than Microsoft, I highly doubt next quarters income will come close to 1 billion.

In any case, dpaanlka is right. These are two very different companies. These broadly stroked comparisons don't really capture what's really happening.