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

Return of Mac Clones?

I bet it will be done in phases.

1) Apple sells hardware exclusively
2) Apple licenses to a small select hardware vendors
3) Apple sells the OS to consumers

The reason they have to sell the hardware / OSX exclusively now is because the marketshare is too small to make enough money. As the marketshare increases to perhaps 10%, open it up to select vendors and then perhaps at 30% marketshare it will be enough to sell to consumers.
 
As long as Steve Jobs is CEO there will be no clones. It goes against everything he says about an integrated package designed by one company.

If anything gets licensed it will be a product (like the Moto phones) that both enhances public awareness of Apple and does not compete with any existing or planned Apple product.
 
Apple should do it if...

if they offer not the current OS but one-generation-passed OS. For example, Apple might want to find a way to allow Panther available but not upgradable to Tiger.

if they can figure it out, the revenue increase would be astounding.

since Tiger works with intel (supposedly), why not offer Tiger to 3rd party but not Leopard? let macs be loaded with Leopard and continue letting users enjoy the superior OS, while making Tiger available for some more revenue?
 
Design Standards.

That's all Steve and Jonathan need to have if they do it.

Clones would be dumb, I am comfy in the small Apple community. I don't want to go to a friend's house knowing I will see an aweful Macinclone running the latest cat OS...

Rubbish...
 
No, no, no. Perhaps in another few years, but not now. Clones will be bad for Apple. They are financially bouyant with sales of Macs at the moment and iPod sales are giving huge earnings too, they have too much going on to even consider the return of the clones. Let them switch to intel, get the OS, software and hardware problems this may throw up sorted, try to fix any potential concerns, (people managing to get Leopard running on their grey boxes), then start to consider the clone program returning.

I would however advocate a policy of quality control with any clones, only apple approved designs allowed.
 
Stella said:
This would be one way of rapidly expanding the Mac marketshare.
Click to expand...

Actually, Mac marketshare would probably drop. I certainly doubt it would rapidly expand. As for OS X's marketshare though...
 
I've been saying since the day the Mini came out that Apple could do this again. With some restrictions....

1. That it only licenses out the Mac Mini to a 3rd party. Let them dabble in the shallow end of the pool while Apple focuses on the higher end "stuff".

2. Apple gets to monitor QC on the hardware and design. (if any.) If for any reason Apple deems that quality is slipping they can pull the contract and the licensing after a two month "warning" period.


This CAN work but with a twist.
 
Stella said:
I'm wondering - did Apple increase its marketshare when Apple licensed clones in the 90s?
Click to expand...
I hope that was meant as a stupid question, because I think their share actually decreased during the clone program. It certainly didn't come near the levels that they would have liked or would have got had they opened up their OS to all comers early on.
 
I hope they dont. They probobly wont but thats what we said with Intel.

But It now does make another reason for making the switch to intel becuase now all the x86 manufacters could use it.
 
they arent going to license to clones b/c they are just going to sell OS x86 to any x86 machine. so anyone can buy the OS for their PC through apple. then apple will directly take on M$ . . . well, you know, maybe
 
Josh396 said:
That's one of the main reasons I just can't see it happening. Could you imagine Jobs doing a demo of a new App on a Dell LCD? Nothing against their LCD's, but they just don't come near to the beauty of an Apple one.
Click to expand...


You mean like this one....
jobs_on_a_dell.jpg
 
This reminds me of that funny video made "We're not a clone now"

Anyone got a link to that thing or seen it before?!? It featured some lip singing dancers arond the Apple Garden with the dogcow and everything!!

hahah, I laughed for hours when I saw that..
 
AlmostThere said:
Apple gets a much higher margin on it's operating system than on it's hardware. It is far more profitable, although Apple currently makes more money on it's hardware as it sells more hardware at a smaller profit.

Remember, IBM used to be a 'hardware' company. No reason Apple can't change, too.
Click to expand...
Apple still say they make more money from hardware sales. If they make a higher percentage from software sales, then okay, but as a dollar amoung, hardware is apple's bread and butter.

IBm did used to be a hardware company, but now many would consider them to be a slow failure. They may still be fairly famous and respected, but they are a bit of a joke for allowing others to clone them and take their market share from them to the point in having to seel their pc division. Would you want to see apple become a mediocre microsoft, because it would take decades to overtake them and so they would become a poorer version of them if they did move out of hardware.
 
Josh396 said:
That's one of the main reasons I just can't see it happening. Could you imagine Jobs doing a demo of a new App on a Dell LCD? Nothing against their LCD's, but they just don't come near to the beauty of an Apple one.
Click to expand...

beauty smeauty.....When I can save $500 on a superior Dell monitor that has the same bloody display in it who gives a crap.
 
steve_hill4 said:
I hope that was meant as a stupid question, because I think their share actually decreased during the clone program. It certainly didn't come near the levels that they would have liked or would have got had they opened up their OS to all comers early on.
Click to expand...


Why would this be a stupid question? The clone programme may well have increased the Mac marketshare ( even if just a little ) - I don't know the history of Mac marketshare of around 1995 - 1997 - that is why I'm asking the question.


I'll rephrase it - did the Mac OS User base increase or decrease.

( I'm assuming people would have the intelligence to work out that when I'm talking about Mac marketshare, I'm not talking about Apple in isolation but Apple + mac clones - hence the revised question - Mac OS User base ).
 
Clones are not bad. I swear, some of you folk are so close-minded and rabid-Apple-fanatical you can't see the forest for the trees.

Let's look back to the cloning era of the Macs. Why did it fail? Because Apple licensed the cloning to niche players. The niche players did not expand the market...they only ended up competing against Apple. At the time, Apple also charged exhorbitant prices too.

Today, its a different ballgame. People are fed up with Windows. Yet when one single company makes a computer (or arguably almost any electric device), the consumer tends to think back to the Sony Betamax fiasco and puts more credence in something that is actually a *standard*. Thus it hurts the argument for OS X since only one manufacturer ships hardware that supports it (officially).

Like it or not, Apple does not have the capacity to pump out as many computers as Dell per year. Manufacturing shortages also hurt potential sales, especially during the holidays. There needs to be some level of licensed cloning if OS X is to overtake Windows.

Widescale cloning is bad, but if you limit it to a handful of companies (like HP and Sony), it will cement OS X, sales will go through the roof, and within 5 years, people will be asking, "Microsoft who"?

Even under that scenario, Apple's sales will continue to improve. Some people might be price conscious, but others will still opt for "the real thing". And hardware design licensing would keep the incompatibility issues from creeping into OS X land that plagues the Windows platform.

So in conclusion, cloning-with-an-executable-plan is better than the current situation. Word.
 
Stella said:
Why would this be a stupid question? The clone programme may well have increased the Mac marketshare ( even if just a little ) - I don't know the history of Mac marketshare of around 1995 - 1997 - that is why I'm asking the question.


I'll rephrase it - did the Mac OS User base increase or decrease.

( I'm assuming people would have the intelligence to work out that when I'm talking about Mac marketshare, I'm not talking about Apple in isolation but Apple + mac clones - hence the revised question - Mac OS User base ).
Click to expand...
It didn't capture a significant portion of new user sales like everyone thought it would.

All the cheap Mac clones did was sell cheap Mac clones to current Mac users, decimating Apple hardware sales.

The growth of new Mac users at the time wasn't too significant, making the clones a major disaster.
 
I don't know if this would be the best idea, but it doesn't impact me at all. Whether there are clones out there or not, I'll still always buy a real, original Apple Mac. :cool:
 
Also guys keep in mind one thing. Windows users are not Mac fanatics. They aren't going to buy a new Mac OS every other year. If Apple decided to turn into a pure software shop they would be in the same predicament
that MS is in. Windows 2000 is pretty damn good and MS is having a very hard time getting people to upgrade to XP.

Same deal would happen to Apple if they decided to make their OS their bread and butter. Once PC users upgrade to Tiger/Leopard/etc its going to be damn hard to get them to upgrade over something like Expose, Spotlight, or Dashboard. Apple would sell a **** load of copies of OS X initially to PC users, but once it hits critical mass....sales would tank. At least right now Apple can bring out a new zippy computer with a new zippy OS and sell several copies of the OS worth in that one sale.
No I don't see Apple doing this anytime soon.
 
Sedulous said:
Does anyone here picture Apple as a software company only?
Click to expand...
No, but everyone has their price. If Apple sees an advantage (read: profit) to licensing its OS to the likes of Dell, HP and Gateway, it will. It's not about, nor ever has been, about "having the best stuff." It's about making money - a lesson Jobs learned right and proper when he was booted from Apple. The bottom line is that regardless of Jobs' vision, Apple is a corporation with a Board of Directors and stockholders - whatever is good for the bottom line is what Apple will do next.
 
Clones are good for the consumer, but bad for Apple.

They're good for the consumer, because you now have more choices. You can stick with Apple gear, you can get a dirt-cheap ugly box that just gets the job done (like Dell's stuff), or you can get a souped-up hot-rod system (like Alienware).

They're bad for Apple because lots of people who today are buying Apple equipment will choose to buy a clone. If too many do (as happened last time around), it can even kill the company. Clones can only help Apple if it serves to greatly incrase the Mac OS user-base. If it doesn't, but simply moves Mac users to other hardware vendors, then it's counterproductive.

WRT some of the arguments others have posted here...

Apple will not become another Dell. Maybe there will be cheap Dell-like companies selling Mac clones, but that won't affect the quality or support Apple will give to people buying Apple equipment.

Sure, some of the clones will be ugly. So what? The people who want looks can continue to buy Apple gear. Those that don't care about looks can bey the clone. Wanting to pay a premium for Ive designs shouldn't be a prerequisite for wanting to use Mac OS.

As for the mini, it is not the only possible low-cost system, you know. A lot of people would like to have a low-cost system with PCI slots, like you find in many cheap PC's. A stereotypical minitower may be ugly, but lots of people would be more than willing to sacrifice looks in favor of internal expansion capability. You shouldn't be forced to buy a PowerMac (at least four times the price) in order to get this.

What everyone seems to forget is that if Apple starts selling system software that can run on generic PC's, they will be going head-to-head against Microsoft on their home turf. The market is littered with the remains of products that tried this (OS/2, BeOS, OpenSTEP, etc.) I think Apple would be incredibly stupid to try this tactic. Better to wait for Microsoft to implode on its own (which it will, eventually, but possibly not for another 5-10 years) and then see about selling into that market.
 
8 Steps For Mac Os To Take Over The Computer World!

Several steps to take the computing world by storm:

1. Apple releases Mactel.
2. Apple licenses Mac OS X to Dell & HP.
3. Apple licenses Mac OS X to any PC-maker. WINDOWS IS OVER!
4. Apple fully opens Mac OS X, including Aqua (as Linux).
5. Apple gives Mac OS X for free (as Linux). LINUS IS OVER!
6. Apple holds 99% of the world Operating System share!
7. Apple holds 10-20% of the world Computer Hardware share SELLING HIGH QUALITY AND BETTER-DESIGN HARDWARE TO 99% OF MARKETWHARE (IN 2005 APPLE SELLS TO ONLY 3-4% WORLDWIDE)!
8. Apple sits down and relax to count the money!

That simple!
 
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