Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
the_mole1314 said:
For the final time people, Apple makes more off of HARDWARE than SOFTWARE. Get that? Ok, again. HARDWARE = $$$$$. SOFTWARE = $. Unless you want to see Apple forcing people to buy newer, worse versions of their software, Apple will never release an x86 based OSX in a box on the shelf of Best Buy.
Software is what sells that hardware on the Mac side. Its not the great hardware and by the way take this OSX since you have our great hardware. Hardware has allways been behind and the software has allways been better. Its been this way for over 20 years. Just my opinion.
 
Hmmm, what would I like about OS X on x86. Well, if that happens, hopefully someone would create a way to play all those "Windows only" games on OS X.

Just thinking about things. It's funny that people say that Apple hardware is the best, but when talk about OS X on x86 comes around, they say that it would take away from Apple's hardware sales. If Apple hardware is the best, why would users not purchase it even if OS X for x86 was available? Could it be a price factor? I read a lot of posts on how people can buy a x86 box with a flat panel monitor for under $600 or so. Not saying that OS X on x86 would be a good thing for Apple, but maybe they should reevaluate their current pricing scheme.

I like the Mac Mini, but it just doesn't do it for me. I wish they made it just a few inches bigger, but had one more RAM slot and an upgradable video card -- maybe also digital audio out and a PCI slot (for my TV tuner card :D).
 
If apple gets a suficcent number of PC makers to manufacture computers based on G5 processor, then there is no need to convert osx for intel...
Prices of bits and parts will be competitive. Apple has done it recently with ipod and HP...

Also that way, apple would not loose money on hardware because people who like apple will still buy apple, since prices would be competitive.

My strategy if i were apple (explained quick and raw):

1: Secretly develop a REAL competitor to Office. And they sure can do that very easily. Compatible with office obviously.

2: Secretly develop a computer hardware platform. No case or design. A cheap one. based on IBM chips, but on common hardware parts.

3: Secretly meet with HP, DELL, and other big names and agree on a common roadmap so that they could all together start producing computers under the common hardware platform.
Apple would still be doing theirs, as always. The others would develop specific cases and solutions for their branded computers.

4: After that, with agreements done, apple would go to major software developers and convince them to port their softwares to apple.

5: After developing, agreements, production and stuff has finished, The powermac G6 will come out with this new hardware. Other computer companies will come out with theirs too. Some could come out with pre-installed "apple-office" wich is 100% compatible with msoffice.

6: Companies will start buying "HP Generation 6" or "DELL G6" from their usual distributors, when they need to upgrade as usual. Major software companies will have their port ready, for upgrading.

7: If companies buy them, then private people will start recognizing the power of the comp, and they will buy one too.

8: Intel will produce new chips under licence from ibm. Bill will develop a new OS called MS X, but no one will buy it, because bill gates still won't know the difference between bluetooth and wi-fi.

9: Viruses will not be a problem, because apple developers are smarter than microsoft ones.

Am I dreaming?

ciao!

Simon
 
the_mole1314 said:
For the final time people, Apple makes more off of HARDWARE than SOFTWARE. Get that? Ok, again. HARDWARE = $$$$$. SOFTWARE = $. Unless you want to see Apple forcing people to buy newer, worse versions of their software, Apple will never release an x86 based OSX in a box on the shelf of Best Buy.

Again, they can still make and sell hardware. Dell does it and they are doing very well. So why not apple? They have the added benefit of selling Software AND hardware.
 
Stuff i386 : watch out for the cell

My prediction: no OSX on Intel, but the shock news of the Spring will be that Sony's Playstation-3 will run OSX.

Why else would Steve Jobs bring the Kunitake Ando, the President of Sony onto the stage at Macworld? Not just to plug an HD camcorder. They were distinctly buddy-buddy friends, yet Sony and Apple are cut-throat competitors - the iPod taking over the Walkman's mantle, iBook v Viao, iTunes v Sony Music.

To quote Kunitake Ando himself: "So, strategically it's very important for Sony to work with Apple who creates the great applications which works seamlessly with all the Sony products. And just all the great software which you just introduced - Just do that. On the Mac Platform - yes."

So: OSX on the Cell processor on PS3. I wish I could see Bill Gates' face if this happened ... OSX on a PS3 in every home
 
Question

Does anyone know where I can find a breakdown of Apple's income and/or profit in terms of how much of it come from software, iPods and iTunes Music Store, computers (desktop and Laptop), and accessories?

Thanks,
prechrchet
 
My vote is that Apple shouldn't do this. From what I can tell from listening and reading Steve Job comments, he values the hardware component too much......which I also think is a good thing.
 
I was resisting commenting on this thread, but I may as well throw in my 2¢.

First off, my personal experiences on the subject.

I love my ThinkPad running Rhapsody. It is a great system, as good as any of my Mac OS X or Rhapsody systems on Apple hardware. In the last 6 years it has not given me any trouble at all.

The question came up about applications for Mac OS X on PCs. I have enough applications for Rhapsody on Intel to stay productive on that system I've built a few sites using it, it is my information center when servicing client's Macs, and I even have some image editing abilities (mainly image correction).

Still, it was the lack of applications that drove the nail in the coffin for Rhapsody on PC hardware.

When Apple acquired NeXT and first released Rhapsody, the only developers ready for Rhapsody were former OPENSTEP developers. Most of these people were developing for OPENSTEP on PC hardware already, and all they had to do was install Rhapsody on that hardware to get started. But even though there was no difference between the PowerPC and Intel versions of Rhapsody, these developers quickly moved to Apple hardware. Not only that, their was a growing discrepancy between the amount of software for each hardware platform. By the second developer release there was almost twice as much software for the PowerPC version than the Intel version. Add to that the fact that you could run Mac apps in Blue Box on the PowerPC version, and the software gap became the elephant in the living room.

Beyond my experiences...

A hardware company making software to help sell other companies hardware is the worst idea they could follow. Apple makes nearly all of it's money on hardware sales.

Apple is not (and has never been) in the same position as NeXT or Be. In fact, Apple could never be in the same position as NeXT as they were the ones who put NeXT in the position they were in (forced out of the desktop market by a settlement agreement with Apple).

Apple is a highly profitable company. And though they would love to see market share like PC makers (who can recycle customers every 18 months or less), Apple's installed base is something closer to 10% of the computer users in the world.

The main reason for wanting PC switchers... they tend to keep the 18 month upgrade cycle even after moving to Macs. Old Mac users tend to hold onto their systems longer than Apple would really want us to (around 3 years).

But consider the math. The last estimate I saw had Apple bringing in about 20% as much revenue as Microsoft. Around 90% of Apple's profits are hardware. If Apple dropped hardware (their money maker) and did only software, they would be making about 2% as much as Microsoft (which is about what their market share is plus the lower cost of Apple's software).

Anything that undercuts 90% of revenues would be a bad (most likely fatal) move on Apple's part.

Apple has no reason to sell Mac OS X on PCs.
 
Keerock said:
This would be logical to sell into those customers who would want the elegance of the OS X server for file, app, web hosting etc. but don't want to junk the hardware. It's essentially playing in the Linux space, after all Linux boxes running on Intel are everywhere in the Enterprise market...


Clusters are relatively cheap to set up, and are expandable. Why should Apple support more architectures? They have already built very nice 1U servers which are very fast and powerful.
 
virus1 said:
Also, it would invite pleanty of new developers to the platform, so people cant say they use windows because there are more games and other apps etc..


Ummmm ... No it wouldn't!

It would further fraction off the OS X market into "Intel" and "PPC" variants (assuming they are correct about the x86 cpu thing). The OSX/Intel crowd would share *nothing* with the Windows/Intel crowd, as one would be writing to OS X APIs and the other to Windows APIs. The OSX/Intel crowd would be able to share all their code with the OSX/PPC crowd (except for byte-order-dependant stuff, which would have to be #ifdef'd out), but would have to compile their apps into two bytecode variants. While Apple might be able to make this easier to do, in no case is it a net gain; it is either a minor or a major negative!

Again, I stand firmly by the argument that the ONLY thing keeping Windows users on Windows is the software they already own. It has nothing to do with hardware options except to a very small niche of die-hard-diyers. It has nothing to do with Windows vs OS X (as in any reasonable comparison OS X comes out far ahead of Windows in every department). It has something to do with fear of change. It has everything, however, to do with the fear of not being able to run their old software anymore, and the fear of having to re-buy (or, in numerous cases, buy for the first time) software that they already bought (or, in numerous cases, ... ahem ... came across ...) for Windows.

Hardware price arguments go out the window with the Mac mini. Sure, it has a few compromises relative to the latest PowerMac G5, but those compromises are significantly less biting than the compromises I'd expect to see in either a PPC-based clone or an Intel-based clone.

The Mac mini is, as I said before, the *perfect* packaging of OSX for Windows users: affordable, unobtrusive, comes with the basic software free, and guarantees no hardware conflicts since it replaces just about everything that might fail on a Windows setup.
 
pubwvj said:
SNIP

On the other hand, Apple keyboards are great. I especially love their notebook keyboards. I'm a very fast touch typist and I can go a lot faster on the Apple notebook computer keyboards with their short travel. They're also quieter and last longer than other keyboards.

Ah, now I also love my PB keyboard but the BT external keyboard I use is very average. Keys are wobbly and clunky. Function keys that map to things like screen brightness and expose aren't labelled -> next to no special mac keys except the apple key...its a different OS, it could put neat Mac features more clearly for us users. The white white only is annoyingly bright.
 
Edge100 said:
Joe Six-Pack doesnt buy a computer for this reason. He buys for the following reasons:

1) Price

2) Perceived performance (i.e. GHz)

3) Price

SNIP

The only way Apple could ensure its long-term survival in this scenario is to make enough money off the software licensing to offset the complete loss of its hardware sales (minus the iPod, of course). This simply will not happen.

There is, of course, a second issue: the fact that the MacOS only operates as well as it does BECAUSE Apple makes the whole package. We all praise the stability and security of OS X, but this only exists because Apple can eliminate all incompatibilities with its own hardware. Once you have every company in the world making logic boards, RAM, hard drives, and whatever else for the MacOS, you've totally lost that stability. I think this is a big part of the problem with Windows right now (though not the only problem!)

The strategy for Apple to be as profitable as possible is this:

1) Keep hold of the OS AT ALL COSTS

2) Invest money into advertising, for God's sake!

3) Use some of those huge cash stores to (a) further improve R&D and (b) continue to purchase professional software packages (e.g. Shake, Motion), which will keep you profitable in the professional sector, and

4) Advertise! Did I mention that???

Mike


I think they need more switcher machines.

I want the eMac to go 15" LCD and remain at the same price point...that would be a perfect switcher machine for those without spare LCDs, or wanting a machine without the limitations the Mac mini has for HDD space, graphics card, even ram, if Apple boost all these as upgrade options.
 
There seem to be two types of people in this thread. Those that better understand Apple as a business and a platform and those that don't.

You can't compare Apple to M$ 'cause they are two different types of companies (when was the last time M$ released a PC?). You can't compare Apple to Dell 'cause they are two different types of companies (when was the last time Dell released a killer app?). Virii aside, you can't assume OS X running on random x86 machines will do much better than XP running on random x86 machines as they both will most likely stumble over the same compatibility and conflict issuse.

Apple makes it's money selling computers. Licensing the OS to other venders didn't work in the past and it's not going to work now 'cause their basic business model is still the same (sell hardware).


Lethal
 
redshift said:
My prediction: no OSX on Intel, but the shock news of the Spring will be that Sony's Playstation-3 will run OSX.

So: OSX on the Cell processor on PS3. I wish I could see Bill Gates' face if this happened ... OSX on a PS3 in every home

More important in my mind would be for the ability to run multiple OS's on the Mac. That would overcome more reasons not to get a Mac. It would also alleviate the need for Virtual PC.
 
Dont Hurt Me said:
Software is what sells that hardware on the Mac side. Its not the great hardware and by the way take this OSX since you have our great hardware. Hardware has allways been behind and the software has allways been better. Its been this way for over 20 years. Just my opinion.
and just my opinion, :wink:, it might be ease of use and simplification of the processes we as end users get when we use Apple software that is the attraction, but for me it's the package. I like the hardware and software combo, I just wouldn't get it, if I had a PC box running OSX.

What matters to me is the computer is transparent and just allows me to get on with it, it's a bit like having a turbocharged pencil when I want to draw.I am not bothered that I haven't got the fastest components in this Apple box, because most times I am the slowest part of the process.

PS I do wish Apple would sometimes create a consumer PC ish box that had some component upgradeability that our PC cousins have had for years, without having to get a G5 Tower, but until Apple raises the numbers I don't see a "Mac mini+" coming along for a while.
 
cr2sh said:
Wow.. what a bunch of elitists. I'm all for the porting to different hardware. Bring it on.

I certainly don't buy into the idea that additional hardware support will increase virus activity. :rolleyes:

exactly what I was going to say. some people have this thing about keeping the mac to themselves. Apple offers some great computers, but they don't offer a solution that suits everyone. Give people options.

Regarding the concern about apple going out of business-- people pointing back to the original cloning experiment: Apple has already placed a much larger emphasis on software now. They have final cut, keynote, Mail, pages, ilife. They now have a lot more options in terms of drawing revenue from mac clones.
 
maxterpiece said:
exactly what I was going to say. some people have this thing about keeping the mac to themselves. Apple offers some great computers, but they don't offer a solution that suits everyone. Give people options.

Regarding the concern about apple going out of business-- people pointing back to the original cloning experiment: Apple has already placed a much larger emphasis on software now. They have final cut, keynote, Mail, pages, ilife. They now have a lot more options in terms of drawing revenue from mac clones.

So very very wrong. Over 60% of Apples profit comes from hardware... just how many sales of Keynote & Pages is going to make that up?

Besides, where are the versions of Word, Photoshop, Quark etc. that will run on these OS X PCs going to come from?

It's a complete fantasy... read the thread.
 
Consider this: Linux has no viruses, and is very stable and secure. More people use Linux then Windows (my opinion anyway ;)). Has there been any Linux viruses? Has there been many Linux hacks? Heck no. Even though I disagree with a PC OS X, it may not be THAT bad.
 
shompa said:
Good idea.
One of the weakest points with PeeCee is BIOS.
Apple should have a special bootprom for X86 that only support tested hardware from the three biggest PC makers

That won't work. Well, it will for a little while, but it won't be long until somebody releases a 'Virtual Mac' app that runs inside Windows and reports to OS X that it's running on approved hardware.

Anyway, I can think of a couple of possibilities here:

OS X on x86 - no way.
OS X on Cell - If IBM, Sony, Toshiba receive permission to sell OS X with their systems, then OS X's popularity will increase. This in turn means that more apps will be available.

If Apple says no, then they really have two choices, Linux and Windows. Linux isn't really 'there' yet, and therefore Cell workstations probably wouldn't get as much popularity as they would otherwise.

On the other hand, if they convince MS to release a Cell version of Windows, then it's likely that Cell will slowly replace x86 as the dominant type of processor. This would in a way be good for the Mac, as Virtual PC would now only need to emulate a Cell, rather than an x86. Despite the Cell being much faster, it is also much closer architecture-wise to the PowerPC found in Macs. Therefore, Windows emulation will be faster, and hopefully people will be less nervous about switching to the 'incompatible' Mac platform.

Sorry if that's hard to understand, I just got up :eek:
 
Yvan256 said:
Remember, EMULATORS, people! All current software WOULD RUN on an emulated PPC processor. You'd have a slower OS X and everything would run on it.

Think more along the lines of "Virtual OS X" instead of "OS X for x86".

Then again, IMO the gateway drug is iTunes, and it's a nice show-off for "the Apple experience". I even had a friend (who's not really pro-Apple nor anti-Microsoft) tell me "wow, it just works!". :D

I hereby posit that a 1.25GHz G4 running OS X on a notebook drive is faster than the best possible PPC emulator running on a Pentium 4 3.8GHz processor.

Which then begs the question: Why pay $2000 more for a top-of-the-line emulating machine when you can spend $500 on a low-end native machine?
 
archer75 said:
I don't see why people equate poor quality with PC's.

Yes, there are some poor quality parts but there are also many high quality parts. The beauty is you can pick out exactly the components you want.

A company like apple simply picked out those components for you. There are many companies on the PC side that do the same. It really is no different.

That said, my PC with Windows XP is by far more stable than this G4 I just got.

Well, "beauty" being in the eye of the beholder, of course. But it's great marketing. In platform comparisons, it's always the cheapest parts, the most crash-prone drivers-written-for-Windows-98-and-might-work-in-XP parts that get pulled in for price comparisons, and the highest-end had-to-mortgage-my-home-and-sell-my-firstborn parts that get pulled in for performance comparisons.

For an end user ... well, the fact that there are dozens of "choices" but only the most expensive of them will work correctly and stabilly ... that's not what I'd call "choice".

While it is certainly true that you can find an XP box that is more stable than a OS X box if you really try, on a whole, at least in my experience with dozens of each, the OS X platform is significantly more stable than the Windows platform.
 
Agree to disagree

Apple couldn't release an x86 version without shooting themselves in the foot. They would need a good productivity application suite because I don't see Microsoft putting out an x86 version of office X. I also don't see Adobe or Macromedia porting their apps. To that extent, when Apple has a full range of products in iWork, you open the possibility. These machines would have to be targeted to home users because of the lack of productivity, but then we have the MacMini, eMac, and iMac etc. So what's the point. You'll just have OS X on an ugly box, but you can get it into consumers hands a lot cheaper, maybe.

Clones are highly unlikely because IBM is having enough difficulty producing G5 chips as it is. I know things have straitened out a bit, but my understanding is the yields are still poor.

Personally I don't want to support a closed system like what Apple has to offer, so I'd like clones or whatever, but that's the lesser of the two evils (Microsoft or Apple). So I am an Apple guy. Linux? Well, I like my easy to use iApps and the beauty of OS X. Linux can't touch it.
 
archer75 said:
You make it sound like this happens all the time. Out of the box it is more insecure, i'll give you that.
But if you know what you're doing there is absolutely nothing to worry about. I've never been hacked and never had a virus. And it takes so very little effort on my part to prevent this.
I don't run an antivirus program. And I don't run a software firewall either. Just behind a router.
I know what apps have spyware and I don't install them.

Hmmm. So, you don't run antivirus or a firewall. What's your secret? 'Cause every Windows user I know has been compromised by viruses at least twice in the last two years (one, my sister, got re-infected five times in a single month, each with a complete wipe-and-reinstall of XP). I'm not even taking all the adware and spyware into account. Do you just avoid the Web and email altogether?

Whatever your secret, you should write it down, put it in a book, and sell it. There are millions of Windows users out there who'd buy it in an instant!
 
Object-X said:
The reason more people don't switch to Apple is ignorance pure and simple, not money.

You got that right!! Oh how many people I have talked to that have circular reasoning on why a Windows operating PC is so much better than Mac. What's funny is that they have NEVER USED A MAC!!! they apparently "hear things" about them. Of course they then pull out the price card, and the whole speed card, which pretty much means nothing if they knew anything about computers... "oh i cant get a dual p4 3.4 ghz for 1,200 instead of a dual g5 2.5 ghz for 3,000".. they are very ingnorant.
 
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.