Toggle sidebar Toggle sidebar
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

If Mac OS X was available on any laptop

"Why would they want to emulate those who are struggling in the market?"

it's this i don't get then. Who would they be emulating?
 
EEEpc

PlaceofDis said:
no, thats not it at all.
they know they're designs are good, but the thing that keeps OS X on them is that it drives sales. period. by licensing out OS X people won't buy macs. remember that this is a mac centric site, so of course a lot of people here would still buy macs, but for most people, they want the cheapest machine to run the software, and that means moving away from apple's offerings. apple is both a software and hardware company, its about a packaged system. and lets not forget the software issues that would arise from trying to support every possible configuration.
Click to expand...

It's happened before. Look up the mid-ninties. Power Computing, Motorola, all made Macs running MacOS and this almost killed Apple.

I doubt they'd do this again.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Macintosh_clone
 
7on said:
It's happened before. Look up the mid-ninties. Power Computing, Motorola, all made Macs running MacOS and this almost killed Apple.

I doubt they'd do this again.
Click to expand...

Different times though. At that point, Apple was struggling all by itself. Licensing clones was a way to try and make some cash to keep it afloat. They had some really bad leadership at that point.

We bought a buncha PCCs. All pieces of **** that were dead/too problematic within 2 years. Still got all the stickers though. 🙂
 
yellow said:
Different times though. At that point, Apple was struggling all by itself. Licensing clones was a way to try and make some cash to keep it afloat. They had some really bad leadership at that point.

We bought a buncha PCCs. All pieces of **** that were dead/too problematic within 2 years. Still got all the stickers though. 🙂
Click to expand...

By 1995, Apple Macintosh computers accounted for about 7% of the worldwide desktop computer market. Apple executives decided to launch an official clone program in order to expand Macintosh market penetration.
...
Had it pursued a clone program in the 1980s, in this view, Apple might have ended up in the position currently occupied by Microsoft—an extremely powerful company with high profit margins and a wide base of consumers perpetually dependent on its system software products. Jobs claimed it was now too late for this to happen, that the Mac clone program was doomed to failure from the start, and since Apple made money primarily by selling computer hardware, it ought not engage in a licensing program that would reduce its hardware sales.
Click to expand...

They weren't "struggling" to stay afloat. And similar market share as today.
They started struggling because of the clones and Windows 95.
Apple would need something like 50-75% marketshare before they could economically pursue a OS only market sans their hardware.
 
7on said:
They weren't "struggling" to stay afloat.
Click to expand...

Ah well.. From my perspective, the clones came at a time when I had low confidence in Apple and their products and the clones didn't help the situation. You're right though.

I should have limited my response to say that bad leadership nearly killed Apple and left the clone issue out of the equation.

Gil Amelio, CEO at the time:

During Amelio's tenure Apple's stock hit a 12-year low, and in the second quarter of 1997, after Steve Jobs sold all but one of his shares in the company, Apple lost another $708 million. Later in 1997, the directors of Apple lost confidence in and ousted then-CEO Gil Amelio in a boardroom coup. Steve Jobs then became Apple's interim CEO. In 2007, Apple CEO Steve Jobs summed up his predecessor's tenure with a quote that he attributed to Amelio:

"Apple is like a ship with a hole in the bottom, and my job is to point the ship in the right direction"
Click to expand...

Incidently, thanks Gil. I owe my house in part to your leadership! 🙂
 
Superdelphinus said:
them thinking people won't buy macs if os x is available on other systems is sort of exactly what i mean.

Surely if they are confident that their machines are ultra desirable then they wouldn't stop selling because os x is widely available, per se. In fact they could get a **** load of money from everyone wanting it, especially those who want a cheap pc (£3-500 range)
Click to expand...

I don't think Apple is worried that people will stop buying Macs, rather that costs and benefits are unequal.

In exchange for a slightly more expensive development of OS X, Apple has to give up some amount of their hardware margins to someone else. Unless the Mac market suddenly exploded, and the cheap machines didn't simply replace machines that Apple was going to sell anyway, Apple loses money. Meanwhile, tech support and other costs will rise.
 
Why doesn't apple have a presence in the middle range. Even their 'budget' macbooks are pretty much top spec for the size etc.

Ps if itunes for windows is anything to go by os x would be horrible on pcs
 
I like this form factor

I am on the road in and out of multiple customer's accounts. I speak to doctors and nurse managers that don't have much time. I want a small tablet form factor that can also be a small laptop for quick presentations as well as big ones.
I would keep my macs at home, wouldn't leave those, my iMacs, PowerBooks, eMacs, etc...but I need more for going on the road, bigger than iTouch and smaller than MacBook.

some other specs
9.13” x 6.57” x 1.36” Approximately 2.2 lbs. with a 3-cell battery
9.13” x 7.32” x 1.36” Approximately 2.5 lbs. with a 6-cell battery
LINK
 

Attachments

  • Picture 9.png
    Picture 9.png
    243.9 KB · Views: 62
  • Picture 12.png
    Picture 12.png
    89.9 KB · Views: 90
Superdelphinus said:
Why doesn't apple have a presence in the middle range. Even their 'budget' macbooks are pretty much top spec for the size etc.

Ps if itunes for windows is anything to go by os x would be horrible on pcs
Click to expand...

Well, Apple's not interested in that part of the market, probably because the margins aren't worth it in their mind.

iTunes for Windows (or for that matter Safari) aren't indicative on how OS X will run on the average PC because they're entirely different problems. iTunes has to run on Windows APIs. OSX running on a PC has to work with the actual hardware.
 
Probably I'd get the cheapest laptop I could, say around $400-$500.

However, I'd much rather have a desktop then a laptop.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back