Dell Says He'd Sell Apple's Mac OS

[paulypants]

Steve's job isn't to appease the "Mac Few", it is to make Apple's shareholders money. Key items to make them money is to expand the company into new products and markets.

You aren't going to make shareholders money if you sabotage your money making business model. Apple makes the majority of their profits from the high margins they reap from computer hardware. iPods are nice, but margins are nowhere near what they are with CPUs. Apple's model is to offer their CPUs to the most people, with the best computing experience possible (amazing OS, integration, media) This is where they will expand their base. Not by licensing software, with no regards to profit at all, thus eating into their money-makers considerably. That's just bad business.

 

[paulypants]

I do understand your point, but I don't think running OS X on other hardware would be a bad experience. I would expect that OS X would always have fewer bugs/issues on Apple's hardware, but what's wrong with offering OS X on other x86 hardware. You might have some driver issues or snags but for average consumers I would think the benefit of not having to worry about malware/viruses would be worth the trade-off if you weren't willing to spend the premium price for Apple hardware. I like Windows and PCs, but I have always felt that Apple's software is better for the home/consumer computing experience. I think hardware plays a smaller role in the overall computing experience than software does.

True, I do believe it plays a smaller role, especially since it's pretty much invisible to the user. But I think from Apple's standpoint it will not be a good move financially (see my previous post). The end user may see some benefits, if the are saavy enough to deal with driver issues, but Apple is a business and they have a model that currently keeps them very profitable. To move off this model I think a lot of dynamics in the undustry would need to change first.

 

[paulypants]

You people crack me up

"apple could expand"

"OH NOS!"

Is your pleasure of using a mac the pleasure of being elitist or the pleasure of actually USING a mac. How does more people using osx reduce the work you get done on YOUR computer?

Take Business 101 and get back to us.

 

[feakbeak]

You aren't going to make shareholders money if you sabotage your money making business model. Apple makes the majority of their profits from the high margins they reap from computer hardware. iPods are nice, but margins are nowhere near what they are with CPUs. Apple's model is to offer their CPUs to the most people, with the best computing experience possible (amazing OS, integration, media) This is where they will expand their base. Not by licensing software, with no regards to profit at all, thus eating into their money-makers considerably. That's just bad business.

You are correct that Mac hardware is Apple's cash cow right now, but it doesn't necessarily need to stay that way. Software can produce huge profit margins. Apple sells hardware for premium prices, but sells software for relatively inexpensive prices. As a theoretical example imagine if Apple sold iLife for Windows for $99. I think they would make a killing. This might adversely affect their OS X/Mac platform, but my point is that there are other options in Apple's future, even more now that they've moved to x86 hardware. Steve and Apple's primary goal is not to keep the Mac zealots happy, it is make money and expand the company. Perhaps sticking with a closed-platform is the best plan for Apple, but if there is a better option, Apple isn't going to pass it up out of fear of offending their hardcore fans. This move to Intel is a perfect example of that fact.

 

[Josh]

Apple is an innovation company. Period. Whether that innovation takes form in hardware, software or business practice is not really the point.

This (Apple licensing OSX on PC's) absolutely IS going to happen. Do the math. How much real profit does Apple make from selling something like a G5 iMac? I would guess around $400. Now, how many computer users of the potential user basedo they sell a $400 profit margin machine to? Lets say 5%. (It is actually much less than that, since the Mac Mini wrecks the average profit, but I will err on the side of inflating the profit to make the point)
----- SNIP ------

*Applause*

It's good to see someone who sees what's going on here and knows what they're talking about.

Currently, Apple is not making these decisions at whim. Moving to Intel was not a sudden, spur-of-the-moment thing like many think. Nor is/was the idea of OS X on x86 a sort of 'back up plan.'

Apple (read: Jobs) has got this whole thing figured out, and has had a plan since day one. All we are doing now is watching it unfold.

The things that are happening - and those that are rumored to happen - are all part of a plan that has long existed, and it's only a matter of time before the curtain unfolds and it is all laid plain before us.

Some may think what I am about to say may seem 'far-fetched' or simply not true at all, but I assure you, before long you will hear these two words again:

Microsoft who?

 

[bredlo]

Intel inside Apple... Michael Dell willing to install OS X on his machines...

I think if those four horseman show up we're all set for the Apocalypse!

 

[FoxyKaye]

Apple is an innovation company. Period... <snip, for brevity>

Yep - I think you've got the right of it. Just posted a similar rant a couple pages back.

What I would like to see is how much Apple's actual profit margins are on the hardware it currently sells. A lot of folks on MR have taken guesses at this, but does anyone have the actual numbers?

 

[Stella]

Agreed - to a certain point
The darwin core maybe good in terms of security, however, how good is the UI layer on top - i bet there are plenty of hacks just waiting to exploit the gui - which can be used to by a virus to create damage - i.e., buffer overruns etc.

Also, a virus could still do plenty of damage, your home directory and /Applications - when you copy apps etc to this directory osx doesn't ask for your password - and thus use sudo. apps remain the ownership of the user who copied it there. Thus, a virus can delete files using your user account when you log on.

( yes, I do run fix permissions )

The design of the OS really prevents viruses from becoming a problem on the mac. You have to have a system password to make any system changes.

I'm sure that hackers will find there way through security holes to find thier way inside your machine but I doubt viruses will ever become much of an issue on it.

 

[poundsmack]

People are going to figure out ways to run OS X on standard x86 hardware. It's going to happen, and Apple will want to get in on it when it does. They know there will be money to be made there.

this is true.take Wine for example on linux for windows and MOL of linux on linux for OSX peoploe will find a way and they will defenenelty do it in this case, een if it is not a true install. VMware is another perfect example.

 

[feakbeak]

Microsoft who?

I agree with most of what you said, but you are correct, I do think this particular statement is far-fetched. Here's my thoughts on why, linky.

 

[fluidinclusion]

Great post

I think Dell and any other PC company would be damn happy to have Mac OS X seeing that their ass could possibly be handed to them by Apple. The one computer company that can run any OS. That's a seller my friend. Not to mention the wealth of hardware upgrades it can take once they move to x86.

Sure, the Dells, Gateways, HP's etc. of the world would scream monopoly, but by then Apple would have made enormous amounts of cash and be willing to license their OS. I don't think Apple WANTS to keep OS X to itself. It just knows it's too small to stand up to MS right now. But if the above happened....

Here's the way I see it played out...

Step 1. Keep OS X on Apple boxes only
Step 2. License OS X to PC companies (Dell, Gateway, HP,..etc)
Step 3. OS X on store shelves for the enthusiast that likes to build their
systems.

Executed carefully, Apple would overtake MS as the dominate OS

IBM and MS crushed Apple one time to the point of ousting Steve Jobs ..he WILL NOT make that mistake again. You can say Apple is a "hardware" company now, but the writing is on the wall. Apple has an extremely powerful library of software now and it's growing.

That's the best post I've read in a long while.

 

[ValiumLolliPoP]

Forgotten Past

If Apple wanted to license OS X on Dell or any other Intel run computer company, they would have done so already. Don't you all remember how Jobs said OS X has been compatible with Intel chips for 5 years now?

If they did license it, history would only repeat itself! Apple makes hardware and if they were to license the OS to Dell who can make computers cheap, Apple would lose big. They did once before and it would happen again. Only if Apple stopped making hardware would they succeed. And since they just switched to Intel chips, that is not ever likely to happen.

 

[zelmo]

You are correct that Mac hardware is Apple's cash cow right now, but it doesn't necessarily need to stay that way. Software can produce huge profit margins. Apple sells hardware for premium prices, but sells software for relatively inexpensive prices. As a theoretical example imagine if Apple sold iLife for Windows for $99. I think they would make a killing. This might adversely affect their OS X/Mac platform, but my point is that there are other options in Apple's future, even more now that they've moved to x86 hardware. Steve and Apple's primary goal is not to keep the Mac zealots happy, it is make money and expand the company. Perhaps sticking with a closed-platform is the best plan for Apple, but if there is a better option, Apple isn't going to pass it up out of fear of offending their hardcore fans. This move to Intel is a perfect example of that fact.

Agree 100%. My mindset regarding Apple keeping it's OS and software "jewels" all to itself has turned 180° (well, maybe 178.5°) in the past couple of weeks. Setting aside (more like getting past) the emotional trauma created by the very idea of Macs running on an Intel chip, the roadmap being laid out before us makes all the sense in the world.
If Apple turrns off ALL of it's current loyal fanbase by opening up the OS, the potential gain still far, far outweighs that loss.

Go, Apple! Well, as long as I can still elect to purchase gorgeous Apple hardware to run my OS and apps on, anyway.

 

[fluidinclusion]

Agreed, at least in education

Yeah, ok, words marked. Dell still does not use quality parts. I've seen more Dells crap out than other brands.

In the 2 departments I was in, EVERY SINGLE DELL in our college departments (~10) that were purchased between 1998 and 2001 had hardware failures. Hard drives that actually didn't even have brand labels on them, video card failures, etc.

As far as high end home machines, I haven't seen a single failure. I just think they put cheap crap in the education machines. In fact, the CPU box and the case sticker of my wife's Dell said Pentium III, but in fact the computer had a Celeron processor. I believe that is illegal.

 

[VanMac]

*Applause*

It's good to see someone who sees what's going on here and knows what they're talking about.

Currently, Apple is not making these decisions at whim. Moving to Intel was not a sudden, spur-of-the-moment thing like many think. Nor is/was the idea of OS X on x86 a sort of 'back up plan.'

Apple (read: Jobs) has got this whole thing figured out, and has had a plan since day one. All we are doing now is watching it unfold.

The things that are happening - and those that are rumored to happen - are all part of a plan that has long existed, and it's only a matter of time before the curtain unfolds and it is all laid plain before us.
Microsoft who?

Roger that.

I've bought more stock in apple based on whats going on(and I dont even own a mac). Stock may take a short term hit on this, but definately going to pay off in a few years

Unfortunately, I may have delayed my PB purchase a little bit....but I'm waiting for a little upgrade anyway

 

[sinisterdesign]

Intel inside Apple... Michael Dell willing to install OS X on his machines...

I think if those four horseman show up we're all set for the Apocalypse!

...i can hear the hoofs...

i'm no biz major & i don't pretend to be, but i just don't think it makes sense to flush the hardware business down the toilet in favor for building out the software side, which is what would happen if Jobs licensed OSX. am i wrong? i just don't see how the hardware side could compete if Dell et all started selling OSX on their cheap as dirt PCs.

i know M$ has made a killing (understatement) being a software company, but they didn't have a hardware side to begin with. plus, as great as OSX is, the cool, sleak, gorgeous hardware is half the panache of being a Mac user.

i'm very curious to see where steve is taking us in the next few years. i'll be along for the ride, but i'm just now coming to terms w/ the whole Intel thing...

 

[SiliconAddict]

At the end of the day after whatever Apple says about how they would never do such a thing it all comes down to money. If Apple feels they can or should transition over to a pure software vendor and can still make the same money they do now they may consider it. If they think they can’t they won’t do it. But there are other interesting possibilities. What if you had a hybrid of the two options? Let someone like HP or Dell make their hardware and work CLOSELY with them to tailor the OS and build the hardware to Apple’s standards but still sell the OS to everyone else. Not saying its going to happen but there are other possibilities other then a black and white “total solution provider” or “software provider” Apple could straddle the two in some form or another.

 

[DeepIn2U]

Why go to DELL?

Or anyone else for that matter?

THeir going to goto Intel chips next year in a transitory state. Their machines can be slightly cheaper than existing machines in the same lineup. Apple doesnt want to make the cheapest machines possible. They want to make the best machines for our customers going forward. To buy the best its gonna cost you a slight premium over the others. For the cost conscious there's the Mac Mini & the eMac. Both of which are switching Dell Windows users over to the Mac. There is no need now of going to Dell. If it was ever going to happen it might've happened back in 1992 when Jobs wasn't around or better chance when he returned. Apple was really hurting then. Jobs didnt sell the entire company to Bill Gates then he isnt gonna do it for Michael Dell.

 

[JesterJJZ]

iDell?

 

[Disturbed]

Apple is a "hardware" company. This is the type of thinking that could limit Apple's mass acceptance. Apple is the only company which has an OS and manufactures its own OS. This is a unique position. In order to go to the next level, a change must occur. Apple has learned from its mistakes in the past.

1. Build Strategic Alliances- Don't try to resist every non-Apple company. The industry as a whole is huge compared to Apple. They were forced to do it with Microsoft years back. The difference now is that these alliances are well thought out. It is smarter to work with the competition where you can find common ground. IBM - they used to be the "enemy." HP - They were part of the vast PC conspiracy. Intel - They were part of the evil empire too. As you can see, Apple is more interested in going to the next level. This is not a bad thing. It will lead to many more opportunities for Mac users.

2. Timing- It's all about timing. The timing for the Newton was wrong. The timing for clones was wrong. The world will never mass-accept Apple built computers if they have no choice. While I believe that I would always buy a Mac, others may never buy a Mac if there is no choice. I was surprised to hear Steve Jobs say that the soul of a Mac is the software. To me, this indicates a change in direction. If a company is stubborn and unwilling to change based on the market and consumer demand, it will be dead in the water. This is the best timing for Apple to change its strategy to increase its marketshare. Capitalize on the success of the iPod. I think the iPod was always part of the strategy. We all complained that there was no emphasis on the "Mac" itself - but it's all about timing. It's not good enough to just advertise whenever. Apple needed to capivate its audience first. And it did. The world is now watching. Time to put it in HIGH gear.

3. Cloning- I don't think that just because it failed at first will mean that it will fail again. If OS X begins to get a large acceptance on Intel hardware, it MAY make sense to allow cloning to continue growth. Let's face it folks. We don't want the world to be 100% apple hardware and software. There will be NO INNOVATION if this is the case. What makes Apple great is that they MUST strive to be innovative to exist. Apple certainly is the creme of the crop. There "could" be a point to where cloning may make sense. It is not now, but possibly in the future. This would be where software sales are significantly greater than hardware sales. How could you determine this if only Apple makes Apples?? Simple. The next logical transformation, which is...

4. Co-Branding- This is where Apple needs to go next. Just like they did with the iPod. Find a manufacturer who has a very large distribution system, and one who can reach deep into corporations. Someplace Apple cannot currently compete with easily. Like it or not, Apple has no credibility with many corporations. They may have it in Hollywood and Madison Ave, but not in the regular corporate world. Apple would still make the computer and would slap a PC logo on it (just like the HP iPod by Apple). The PC manufacturer would distribute, market, and service it. There will come a point where Co-branded Macs outsell Macs. This would be the time to consider a cloning program. One with very well designed specifications.
Another idea, perhaps an interim solution, could be to have some kind of PCI card that Apple could make and sell for users to allow their existing PCs run OS X. This way, they still have control over their OSes.

5. Determine the true enemy- Is Dell or HP or Intel the true enemy?? Or is it Microsoft?? I say it's Microsoft. They need to be put in their place, not eliminated. 95% marketshare is not good for any company. Not good for innovation or ideas. I don't think that MS would ever discontinue Office for the Mac anyway. Do you realize that MS has made Excel for the Mac longer than it has for Windows?? It's true. Research it. Apple itself cannot kill the beast without the help of others. Companies such as Intel have become frusterated with MS. And I think for the first time, they see an alternative. Up until now, Windows was it. No choice. MS and its predatory practices. Some tried with Linux, but Linux will never (let me say it again... NEVER) be mainstream for home and general business users. (That's another debate). SO, these PC companies must do what MS wants, period. And I think they are looking for some new bargaining power. And until recently, there wasn't even a chance. All things aside, it doesn't really matter to Dell or HP or any other PC manufacturer what OS is on their computer. And, for the record, I DO NOT LIKE DELLS AT ALL.

 

[paulypants]

You are correct that Mac hardware is Apple's cash cow right now, but it doesn't necessarily need to stay that way. Software can produce huge profit margins. Apple sells hardware for premium prices, but sells software for relatively inexpensive prices. As a theoretical example imagine if Apple sold iLife for Windows for $99. I think they would make a killing. This might adversely affect their OS X/Mac platform, but my point is that there are other options in Apple's future, even more now that they've moved to x86 hardware. Steve and Apple's primary goal is not to keep the Mac zealots happy, it is make money and expand the company. Perhaps sticking with a closed-platform is the best plan for Apple, but if there is a better option, Apple isn't going to pass it up out of fear of offending their hardcore fans. This move to Intel is a perfect example of that fact.

Too true. Like I said, if the dynamics change and Apple sees the opportunity to expand and remain as profitable or more, they wouldn't hesitate for a second. But, I believe anything Apple does would have some sort of "Apple Twist" to it, just to keep them different and provide fuel for marketing purposes.

 

[iDrinkKoolAid]

I doubt that Apple will do that. They already tried that, and it didn't work out the way the liked (less hardware sale and hardly any increase in the market share of Mac-OS) Why would it work out differently this time?

Back then Apple was not hot and dying a slow death (in the public eye at least). Apple was also arrogant and expensive. Power Computing showed them a thing or two. Faster and better, although more ugly.

 

[paulypants]

How much real profit does Apple make from selling something like a G5 iMac? I would guess around $400.

Guess again. Their margins are much higher than that.

 

[bbyrdhouse]

If Apple liscenses OS X to anybody I hope that it would be Sony.
They make good looking machines and laptops that typically are more expensive than other computer makers anyway.

 

[Josh]

For those who say Apple is a hardware company, I disagree.

True - the majority of their $$ is generated through hardware sales. But that's just pure 'the way it is' due to factors such as:

1. The Hardware costs more. Why? Because the technology behind, and the manufacturing process that creates, the hardware costs much more than it does to pay developers to make software.

2. You need the hardware to run the software.

It all boils down to the simple fact that the only reason people buy Apple hardware is for the software.

Do you honestly think a dual 2ghz PowerMac running Windows would be so glorious? No. Sure wouldnt. It's the software that makes Apple so special (why I am saying this again, I don't know - Steve Jobs already said so himself).

If Apple was a hardware company, they would simply make hardware that can run Windows (thats where the users are) because that would make them the most money. But they don't do that at all. What more evidence does one need - in addition to Steve's statement as well?

If Apple liscenses OS X to anybody I hope that it would be Sony.
They make good looking machines and laptops that typically are more expensive than other computer makers anyway.

And why is 'expensive' a good thing? It's not. I don't know why people take pride in the fact that Apple is expensive. That is a FLAW - not a positive feature.

I'm hoping you mean't "inexpensive."

Mac users all over need to ditch the whole Elitist 'Me and my machine are better than you because it costs more' attitude. Apple is ditching that philosophy, it's time the users catch on.

It's 2005. There is no need for computer systems to cost $3k. That's not what people are going to buy. Apple wants to survive and excel, which is exactly why they are moving forward, and though it may not seem apparent now, their prices WILL drop in the times to come.