OS X Unleashed

[GregA]

Why is cross platform "just" OSX for Intel?

When people talk about Apple going into new markets (and all the trouble it could cause) they seem to generally talk about OSX for PCs. I think there are so many other ways Apple could go cross platform and OSX for Intel is the LAST one. IBM had the right idea 10 years ago when it allowed all its divisions to act independently... while still making it that little bit better to work together.

So taking the Apple cross platform question a different way.
Starting by grouping Apple into 3 broad sections... OS, Apps, Hardware

OS: The standard question:
Could an Apple OS division sell OSX for PPC clones & Intel clones. This has been discussed a lot.
What about licensing in some way the Cocoa API for cross platform development on Linux & Windows? (it makes the next Apps question potentially very easy for Apple too).
or the feasibility of MacOS GUI for Redhat Linux?

Apps: The next question:
Could an Apple software division profitably sell Final Cut, AppleWorks, WebObjects, Keynote, & Quicktime etc for Windows & Linux? What about cross platform iApps (cheaply with free upgrades). (I know I'm cheating, some of these exist!)

Hardware: This I'm interested in:
If Apple hardware was independent - do you think many pc users would like to buy a Windows-iMac (without Mac OSX!)? Bundle it with Appleworks, iApps, Rendezvous, Mail & Safari, and iCal (and some Apple backgrounds and screen savers) of course. (They could buy OSX on Intel...).

I know Macs are better because they are integrated, and Macs cost more because of the quality OS & software. And even if Apple sold cross platform, the best experience would still be the integrated package.

If Apple allowed all I mentioned... they would sell less bundled/integrated systems. But...
- Would the hardware division overall sell more or less hardware than it does now?
- Would the apps division sell more or less?
- Would more or less copies of the OS be sold?
- would cross platform development lead to more apps for MacOS?
- How does all this affect .mac, iTunes, iChat?
- What would happen to the Apple mindshare - for loyal customers? and those who thought Apple was dead?

Seriously - is it possible that in 1 year, instead of 3% of the computer market, Apple PowerPCs would have 2% of the computer market, Apple's Windows machines could reach 2%, and the OS sales could reach 1%? (then Apps? Development? etc?).

 

[pgwalsh]

Re: Why is cross platform "just" OSX for Intel?

Originally posted by GregAussie
When people talk about Apple going into new markets (and all the trouble it could cause) they seem to generally talk about OSX for PCs. I think there are so many other ways Apple could go cross platform and OSX for Intel is the LAST one. IBM had the right idea 10 years ago when it allowed all its divisions to act independently... while still making it that little bit better to work together.

I agree that this would be a good approach.

So taking the Apple cross platform question a different way.
Starting by grouping Apple into 3 broad sections... OS, Apps, Hardware

OS: The standard question:
Could an Apple OS division sell OSX for PPC clones & Intel clones. This has been discussed a lot.
What about licensing in some way the Cocoa API for cross platform development on Linux & Windows? (it makes the next Apps question potentially very easy for Apple too).
or the feasibility of MacOS GUI for Redhat Linux?

I don't agree with the Mac GUI for Redhad or any form of linux. OS X is Unix and I think it can be the desktop alternative instead of Linux. However they can coexist.

Apps: The next question:
Could an Apple software division profitably sell Final Cut, AppleWorks, WebObjects, Keynote, & Quicktime etc for Windows & Linux? What about cross platform iApps (cheaply with free upgrades). (I know I'm cheating, some of these exist!)

I hope they don't sell those apps for Windows or Linux. If the do theres less of a reason to switch. I'm personally all about OS X and the apps. I think this would be a bad move.

Hardware: This I'm interested in:
If Apple hardware was independent - do you think many pc users would like to buy a Windows-iMac (without Mac OSX!)? Bundle it with Appleworks, iApps, Rendezvous, Mail & Safari, and iCal (and some Apple backgrounds and screen savers) of course. (They could buy OSX on Intel...).

Apple could sell Windows hardware, but I'd hate to see it. If they were a separate hardware company it would make sense, but maybe they could survive without doing so.

I know Macs are better because they are integrated, and Macs cost more because of the quality OS & software. And even if Apple sold cross platform, the best experience would still be the integrated package.

If Apple allowed all I mentioned... they would sell less bundled/integrated systems. But...
- Would the hardware division overall sell more or less hardware than it does now?
- Would the apps division sell more or less?
- Would more or less copies of the OS be sold?
- would cross platform development lead to more apps for MacOS?
- How does all this affect .mac, iTunes, iChat?
- What would happen to the Apple mindshare - for loyal customers? and those who thought Apple was dead?

Seriously - is it possible that in 1 year, instead of 3% of the computer market, Apple PowerPCs would have 2% of the computer market, Apple's Windows machines could reach 2%, and the OS sales could reach 1%? (then Apps? Development? etc?).

Okay, if Apple goes Intel they should bundle the iApps with the OS and sell it for $150. You want people to have the full expereince wthout having to buy or download additional software...

I think cross platform would lead to more apps. I think a lot of people that are using Linux would switch and more windows users would switch. But as I said before it would be easier to switch if you just had to buy the new OS then to buy a new computer. Not many people want to go out and buy another computer.

Businesses are leaving Sun for Linux. OS X would fit the bill perfectly. But unless there are more vendors, no large business would make that switch to one vendor.

Thanks for all your input Greg. You have some interesting points of view.

 

[bennetsaysargh]

Originally posted by GregAussie
You could also sell OSX with this licensing idea. Download it for free, or bundle it on every computer magazine - and let anyone try it for a month before asking them to pay.

i don't think you'd want to download an OS, and about letting people try it for a month, well tat's lik making the OS shareware! that's kinda stupid.

 

[pgwalsh]

Originally posted by bennetsaysargh
i don't think you'd want to download an OS, and about letting people try it for a month, well tat's lik making the OS shareware! that's kinda stupid.

People download OS's all the time. Check out Debian Linux... Just package it as a disk image and bamb. Of course this wouldn't be for the average Joe, but I don't think an average joe is going to test an OS for a month or two anyway.

Debian also has a net install. You download a core piece and once you choose the packages you want it downloads and installs the rest. So the inital download is quite small and doesn't require a 650 mb download or more. They actually suggest this method over doing the whole package. For obvious reasons you'd want broadband and a bit of know how.

 

[bennetsaysargh]

i never tryed linux. i don't know why, but like you said, average people won't try an OS for a month or 2.

 

[tazo]

Originally posted by bennetsaysargh
i never tryed linux. i don't know why, but like you said, average people won't try an OS for a month or 2.

I tried redhat linux on my pc for about oh 3 days. then i gave up on it. if I cannot get on the internet easily, download any program, and have to use a command line just to burn a cd, Its not usable to me. sorry.

-tazo

 

[jayb2000]

Why x86?

Since Intel and AMD are both moving away from that architecture, why spend millions of dollars and probably at least a couple of years to port OS X and the iApps and all the other software to a processor line that is marked for death? 😕

I could sort of see pushing to get on Itanium or Opteron (I think thats the new one from AMD), but to push backwards seems like it would provide very minimal payoffs.

However, Apple has built its reputation and its billions in cash on its hardware AND software packages. Sure, they can increase their market share by licensing to anyone or porting, but why is market share so important? They are profitable, and based on the trends I have seen on MR over the past year or so, it seems like a fair amount of the users are just waiting for 970 to go buy some systems.

Combine that with the iTMS and iPod, and I think you can get a larger share of market, both from current Windows and Linux users. 😀

I do agree that they need better hardware, but I think they need to maintain the control and put out a wider range of products, rather than trying to rewrite so much of their code.

A $500 2ghz G3 box for the home internet surfer/picture taker with a year of .Mac free would get an awful lot of people.

If you look at HP, Dell, Gateway, they do not have just cheap machines, they have a mix. That's because margins on PCs are under 10% (and usually 3-5). They put cheap components in some machines so they can cut the price and they put expensive ones in other machines and charge more for it.

Apple has much higher margins because they only sell the higher end equipment.
It keeps their market share down, but their revenue high.

I work with XP, Win2k, NT, HP-UX, and Sun daily. My home machine is an iMac G3 400mhz. Its slow, but even running iTunes (constantly, I am re-ripping my CDs), iChat, Safari, Apache with PHP, My SQl and Folding (of course 😎 ) it has yet to crash. That is in 6 months.

On the other hand, I got a new laptop Monday for work, and running XP and it bluescreened on Tuesday.

Market share may increase revenue, but if it means Apple has to relinquish some control and their software becomes 20% more buggy or faulty - then the heck with market share.

I guess I just would want a better understanding of the trade offs before I supported porting the OS.

Expanded hardware I can see.

 

[billyboy]

Re: Why x86?

Originally posted by jayb2000


However, Apple has built its reputation and its billions in cash on its hardware AND software packages. Sure, they can increase their market share by licensing to anyone or porting, but why is market share so important? They are profitable, and based on the trends I have seen on MR over the past year or so, it seems like a fair amount of the users are just waiting for 970 to go buy some systems.

Combine that with the iTMS and iPod, and I think you can get a larger share of market, both from current Windows and Linux users. 😀

You're right except that in percentage terms they dont make much of a profit. Less than 1%. Compare that to about 30% fom M$ and I can see PG's thinking, there is a lot of money in mass marketed software. Like you and Apple though, I think there is a lot to be said for quality before quantity. It doesnt make for fantasmagorical business figures, but its steady and Apple customers are more than happy with the software by and large.

I think though that henceforth there will be a shift up of gears and Apple can start to cash in on their conservative business plan. If their quality and innovation conviction hadnt been so strong in the past, I dont think they could expect many people to be waiting in anticipation of something really special over the coming 6 months.

 

[MacBandit]

Re: Re: Why x86?

Originally posted by billyboy
You're right except that in percentage terms they dont make much of a profit. Less than 1%. Compare that to about 30% fom M$ and I can see PG's thinking, there is a lot of money in mass marketed software. Like you and Apple though, I think there is a lot to be said for quality before quantity. It doesnt make for fantasmagorical business figures, but its steady and Apple customers are more than happy with the software by and large.

I think though that henceforth there will be a shift up of gears and Apple can start to cash in on their conservative business plan. If their quality and innovation conviction hadnt been so strong in the past, I dont think they could expect many people to be waiting in anticipation of something really special over the coming 6 months.

Where did you come up with the 1% figure. From all of the share holder meetings I have read about Apple holds around 30-36% net profit.

Also I agree about them getting ready to cash in. I think for the last 5 years or so Apple has been doing it right. They have been playing it safe and at the same time building up there company base, buying into new software, developing, etc.. I think they have done exceptionately well considering the tech market sectors economical down turn. Now that the economy is making a turn around they are set to pounce. It seems to me that a lot of technological achievements on there part are or have just come together and will make the next couple years very exciting. Also due to there ongoing new developemental model for there business I think there will be a continual out pouring of new items from them for many many years to come. The are truly set for a fantastic future.

 

[billyboy]

Re: Re: Re: Why x86?

Originally posted by MacBandit
Where did you come up with the 1% figure. From all of the share holder meetings I have read about Apple holds around 30-36% net profit.

Look to the right hand side of the following link pages.

http://quote.fool.com/Snapshot/snapshot.asp?currticker=aapl&symbols=aapl

Gross profit is currently about 28%, the final net figure is a bit sad🙁

Microsoft arent tagged M$ for nothing. Choke on these figures. Apple's business principles come at a price.

http://quote.fool.com/Snapshot/snapshot.asp?currticker=msft&symbols=msft

 

[MacBandit]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Why x86?

Originally posted by billyboy
Look to the right hand side of the following link pages.

http://quote.fool.com/Snapshot/snapshot.asp?currticker=aapl&symbols=aapl

Gross profit is currently about 28%, the final net figure is a bit sad🙁

Microsoft arent tagged M$ for nothing. Choke on these figures. Apple's business principles come at a price.

http://quote.fool.com/Snapshot/snapshot.asp?currticker=msft&symbols=msft

Wow, thanks for the links. It's always good to have the evidence to back up a claim. I guess the figures I heard were for gross margins. There Net is definitely sorry but that also could be due to there accounting practices. You know it's a lot beter on the taxes if you don't show a profit.

 

[billyboy]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Why x86?

Originally posted by MacBandit
There Net is definitely sorry but that also could be due to there accounting practices. You know it's a lot beter on the taxes if you don't show a profit.

Mayb with the emphasis on innovation there is also not a lot left in the kitty to pay tax on. Still, in the future lets hope they have to pay so much tax they're sick.

 

[GregA]

Re: Why x86?

Originally posted by jayb2000
If you look at HP, Dell, Gateway, they do not have just cheap machines, they have a mix. That's because margins on PCs are under 10% (and usually 3-5). They put cheap components in some machines so they can cut the price and they put expensive ones in other machines and charge more for it.

Apple has much higher margins because they only sell the higher end equipment.
It keeps their market share down, but their revenue high.

Just wondering - if Dell makes "10%" on a $2000 system, that means their cost was $1820.

If apple makes "30%" - on a $2000 system - that means their cost was $1540.

The thing is, the Dell cost includes paying MS for WindowsXP. Does the Apple cost include paying for the ongoing OS development etc? If we said that MacOSX charge was $200 (upgrades are then cheaper), that makes Apples profit 15%.

Anyone know if Apple counts the OS cost?

 

[GregA]

Originally posted by bennetsaysargh
i don't think you'd want to download an OS, and about letting people try it for a month, well tat's lik making the OS shareware! that's kinda stupid.

I agree with the downloading - still free in some way though (via a DVD-Rom on a magazine?). If Apple releases an OS for Intel, I think there's merit in letting people try it free - and also merit in not charging them anything until they've checked it works with all their hardware.

A trial version stops some people from complaining and may save some headaches for Apple.

 

[GregA]

Re: Re: Why is cross platform "just" OSX for Intel?

Originally posted by GregAussie
Could an Apple software division profitably sell Final Cut, AppleWorks, WebObjects, Keynote, & Quicktime etc for Windows & Linux? What about cross platform iApps (cheaply with free upgrades).

Originally posted by pgwalsh
I hope they don't sell those apps for Windows or Linux. If the do theres less of a reason to switch. I'm personally all about OS X and the apps. I think this would be a bad move.

I do agree with the 'whole package' attractiveness. But this could work against Apple too.

If people are thinking they can't go 'half way' with Apple, they may steer clear. ("If I have windows I can swap and change hardware, OS, and apps. Apple just does Apple stuff")

I also think that if Apple wants to 'play nicely' as the media centre of house, branching out is a signal to everyone that they're playing nicely.