They should expand the gaming market. All that great hardware, and no games utilize it. where can i get a mac version of FFXI?
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Return of Mac Clones?
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Marx55 said:
Allow me to elaborate on your ridiculous fiction:
9. Apple donates money to politicians
10. Politicians vote to change Constitution to allow corporations to become President.
11. Commander Jobs, head of the Apple party, goes to war against the EU for still using Windows.
12. Leveraging the combined resources of his planet, Overlord Jobs contacts extraterrestrial life.
13. After conquering the known Universe, Steve He-Whose-Name-Cannot-Be-Uttered mandates that every computer in the Universe run OS X. "Rosetta II" released to emulate all known computers, including the abacus.
14. Profit.
And how exactly does giving your software away = profit? Netscape, anyone?
Anyone here try to wakeboard? If so, you know that before you can get up out of the water, the boat has to be going fast enough so that you can leverage yourself up over the board. If you try to pick yourself too early, you'll fall flat on your face, and your ride is over.
Same thing here. I'm not saying it's impossible for Apple to do this at some point, but they haven't built up the momentum that they need to guarantee that they will stand on their feet after seriously cutting into their hardware sales. Simply licensing OS X isn't going to suddenly induce millions upon millions of users to ditch Windows and buy OS X. And that's what it would take for Apple to become a serious player in the OS sphere, and make a real profit from software exclusively.
Same thing here. I'm not saying it's impossible for Apple to do this at some point, but they haven't built up the momentum that they need to guarantee that they will stand on their feet after seriously cutting into their hardware sales. Simply licensing OS X isn't going to suddenly induce millions upon millions of users to ditch Windows and buy OS X. And that's what it would take for Apple to become a serious player in the OS sphere, and make a real profit from software exclusively.
Lynxpro said:
Couldn't have said it better myself. Look, Apple markets their HARDWARE to a certain clientele. They are a boutique manufacturer like Alienware or Velocity Micro. They offer a computer that is of higher quality and different than your standard PC. That clientele is not going to go to Dell, they would have bought one in the first place if that was what they wanted. On the other hand, someone might our OS, but also want something a little more conventional, but still high quality and buy from a boutique manufacturer or care more about the drive and get a HP or Dell. We are in no position to judge what another wants for hardware.
Hurts their image? how?BenRoethig said:
Is Microsoft's image hurt by the fact that Windows becomes very unstable when run in a virtual machine on Linux boxes? Hardly.
When was the last time you saw any software product's image hurt by people hacking it to run on unsupported hardware? Has OS X's image been hurt by those people who run it on pre-G3 PowerMacs?
I doubt it will happen any time soon, but it COULD happen sometime and doesn't HAVE to be bad idea.
The situation now--or the situation in 5 years--is NOT the same as the situation before cloning the last time.
And the WAY cloning is handled wouldn't have to be the same.
So the problems of last time DO NOT have to apply to every future scenario.
For instance, I can see Apple licensing OS X, along WITH very specific hardware specs (so supporting OS X doesn't become the chaos it is with Windows), to one or two strategic partners, at just the right time.
There's a balance of course--increase the Mac market as a whole, even by cloning, and Apple's OWN hardware would sell more too. Plus they get software revenues. Done right, it could be good business for Apple. (And more choices for us too? Can't complain there. Then again, my first Mac WAS a clone
)
It would make much more sense to license OS X to strategic partners--meaning that Apple has some say over keeping the hardware consistent on some level--than to sell OS X in a box for "any old PC." Supporting THAT would be a nightmare. I don't ever want to see OS X supporting such a variety of machines that it becomes bloated and buggy--which is part of Microsoft's problem.
I don't know if it will ever make strategic sense to have clones, but it would NOT come as a total shock to me, and I would not object to Apple doing it, in the right way. Maybe with Leopard or beyond.
Until then, the baseless rumors and speculation about cloning (and about selling boxed copies of OS X for Intel) are good things! Because they scare MS in a long-term sense (good leverage, if we ever were to fear MS killing off Mac Office). And more importantly, because that's great mindshare: it says "PC owners WANT OS X!" Maybe they'll have to get a Mac to have it... but the idea that OS X is something people would want on their PCs is a powerful one. Dangle that carrot forever--it sells Macs
The situation now--or the situation in 5 years--is NOT the same as the situation before cloning the last time.
And the WAY cloning is handled wouldn't have to be the same.
So the problems of last time DO NOT have to apply to every future scenario.
For instance, I can see Apple licensing OS X, along WITH very specific hardware specs (so supporting OS X doesn't become the chaos it is with Windows), to one or two strategic partners, at just the right time.
There's a balance of course--increase the Mac market as a whole, even by cloning, and Apple's OWN hardware would sell more too. Plus they get software revenues. Done right, it could be good business for Apple. (And more choices for us too? Can't complain there. Then again, my first Mac WAS a clone
)It would make much more sense to license OS X to strategic partners--meaning that Apple has some say over keeping the hardware consistent on some level--than to sell OS X in a box for "any old PC." Supporting THAT would be a nightmare. I don't ever want to see OS X supporting such a variety of machines that it becomes bloated and buggy--which is part of Microsoft's problem.
I don't know if it will ever make strategic sense to have clones, but it would NOT come as a total shock to me, and I would not object to Apple doing it, in the right way. Maybe with Leopard or beyond.
Until then, the baseless rumors and speculation about cloning (and about selling boxed copies of OS X for Intel) are good things!
Because they scare MS in a long-term sense (good leverage, if we ever were to fear MS killing off Mac Office). And more importantly, because that's great mindshare: it says "PC owners WANT OS X!" Maybe they'll have to get a Mac to have it... but the idea that OS X is something people would want on their PCs is a powerful one. Dangle that carrot forever--it sells Macs What poor journalism.. why do people keep making these ridiculous predictions?!?
Just because pc-builders keep asking for OSX adds absolutely no strength to the argument that it will happen. I mean, of course they want OSX.. by offering their customers the option of it they hardly lose out and actually stand to gain..
..whilst it would adversely affect apple's hardware sales.. afterall the average consumer will pay less for the same amount of functionality regardless of differences in aesthetics (or rather, lack of aesthetics) as can be seen in the x86 market of today.
And naturally its far too big a risk to take if the aim is to grab a huge chunk of the market, especially considering its one that one would not be able to gauge as to whether its worked or not until a decade or so later.. several years of greatly reduced profits I would assume is not so appealing.
At the end of the day the chicken or egg situation still stands (many developers won't develop for OSX because of small marketshare.. many consumers won't go mac due to lack of third party apps).. licensing OSX would not make the problem go away.
Apple is a 50 billion dollar company.. Microsoft is a 283 billion dollar company.. and yet its only got a three percent or so marketshare.. quite clearly hardware has to be key to their business plan.
Just because pc-builders keep asking for OSX adds absolutely no strength to the argument that it will happen. I mean, of course they want OSX.. by offering their customers the option of it they hardly lose out and actually stand to gain..
..whilst it would adversely affect apple's hardware sales.. afterall the average consumer will pay less for the same amount of functionality regardless of differences in aesthetics (or rather, lack of aesthetics) as can be seen in the x86 market of today.
And naturally its far too big a risk to take if the aim is to grab a huge chunk of the market, especially considering its one that one would not be able to gauge as to whether its worked or not until a decade or so later.. several years of greatly reduced profits I would assume is not so appealing.
At the end of the day the chicken or egg situation still stands (many developers won't develop for OSX because of small marketshare.. many consumers won't go mac due to lack of third party apps).. licensing OSX would not make the problem go away.
Apple is a 50 billion dollar company.. Microsoft is a 283 billion dollar company.. and yet its only got a three percent or so marketshare.. quite clearly hardware has to be key to their business plan.
the cloning situation back in the 90's was a totally different place for Apple. They were running 0S7(?) from what I remember which was not significantly better then Windows at that time. Mac hardware was still a niche thing with limited comsumer market presence and the internet was still a newborn and not required technology. And those who wanted to be clone manufacturers (oooh, Umax) were pretty small manufacturers. Apple was falling apart financially.
Jump forward to 2005 and you have OSX, which is miles ahead of Windows. So far it's not even funny any more. A significant hardware presence in the consumer world thanks to the iPod and Apple Stores and everyone has to be online to exist in the world. Right now major manufacturers want to build Mac compatible machines. Their is huge potetntial for lift off here and the only thing that is stopping them is Jobs.
Personally I don't care what the machine looks like. If a line of Sony designed Macs is lined up in Best Buy that can only be a good thing. I have a choice of whose brand I will buy, just like every other piece of consumer hardware. If the Apple units are better I will buy one of those, if not I won't.
Do you want to keep the small audience for OSX and with it the tiny amount of software available? (Anyone played BF2 or FEAR on their Mac yet? No.) Having presence in major stores with competitively priced and familiar looking hardware would be a huge bonus for regular consumers.
Jump forward to 2005 and you have OSX, which is miles ahead of Windows. So far it's not even funny any more. A significant hardware presence in the consumer world thanks to the iPod and Apple Stores and everyone has to be online to exist in the world. Right now major manufacturers want to build Mac compatible machines. Their is huge potetntial for lift off here and the only thing that is stopping them is Jobs.
Personally I don't care what the machine looks like. If a line of Sony designed Macs is lined up in Best Buy that can only be a good thing. I have a choice of whose brand I will buy, just like every other piece of consumer hardware. If the Apple units are better I will buy one of those, if not I won't.
Do you want to keep the small audience for OSX and with it the tiny amount of software available? (Anyone played BF2 or FEAR on their Mac yet? No.) Having presence in major stores with competitively priced and familiar looking hardware would be a huge bonus for regular consumers.
MontyZ said:
Yes, it was under Spindler, and it was at a time when Apple were utterly failing to produce a modern operating system. Cloning did nothing at all to grow the Mac market, and that's why it went away. Today, with an OS that people actually want, it could be very different.
Marx55 said:
Certainly would be nice to increase market share to 20-30%! Unfortunately it is a little more complicated than that. I can certainly see Apple licensing Mac OS X to a few partners, but not release a universal x86 version. One of the reasons OS X works so well is that Apple controls the whole box. With just a few partners, perhaps one or two, Apple can still control the whole box and keep variations and potential bugs to a minimum thereby stopping the OS X experience from being as buggy as Windows. If there was the clout of an HP or Dell behind Apple then the OS X market share would increase rapidly. People are scared of being locked into Apple's hardware.
That could be crazy, but would be cool to see who could pull of a good Mac Clone but it would end up hurting Apple more then it even could help
I dont want to see Apple become a MS
I dont want to see Apple become a MS
Additionally the obvious reasons why people would choose a dell with OSX over a mac with OSX would be cost..
.. a) the outlaying cost
.. and b) the upgradeability and cost of doing so of the dell compared to the mac.
Surely it would make sense for apple to instead a) make macs match the prices of their counterparts
and
b) make macs fully upgradeable with off the shelf parts (aside from the motherboard.. which is possibly where my argument falls down)..
..obviously this would reduce profits..
..but not as much as leasing the OS for the same effect.
.. a) the outlaying cost
.. and b) the upgradeability and cost of doing so of the dell compared to the mac.
Surely it would make sense for apple to instead a) make macs match the prices of their counterparts
and
b) make macs fully upgradeable with off the shelf parts (aside from the motherboard.. which is possibly where my argument falls down)..
..obviously this would reduce profits..
..but not as much as leasing the OS for the same effect.
russed said:
me too. i feel like i switched to mac to get away from this crap.
then the intel thing, now this. man. jobs must think that people
like to spend obscene amounts of money, just so they can "be different"
like everybody else.
Not going to happen. With the recent uptick in Mac sales, Apple would be foolish to take away that momentum.
Regardless, i expect Mac marketshare to reach double digits by the end of the decade. Yes, by 2010, Macs and OS X will see at least 10% marketshare and that will be accomplished without any Mac Clones.
Regardless, i expect Mac marketshare to reach double digits by the end of the decade. Yes, by 2010, Macs and OS X will see at least 10% marketshare and that will be accomplished without any Mac Clones.
The bottom line is, both camps are quite correct.
Cloning--or even selling boxed OS X--WOULD bring in a lot of money and new Mac users. No doubt.
AND:
Cloning--or selling boxed OS X--would ALSO cost Apple a lot of money and exact a price. No doubt.
So which is greater? The cost or the benefit?
There are many approaches, including ones we've never thought of, and the landscape is always changing. Maybe the cost/benefit answer won't always be as simple and unchanging as some might think.
Many people assume that ALL cloning scenarios, no matter what the approach, will have a greater cost than benefit. That could be true, but I don't think it's that obvious.
Others are sure Apple has a sure winner if they let other companies have Mac OS X. I don't think that's obvious either.
I'll wait and see what, if anything, Apple cooks up. I doubt they are totally ignoring these questions, but I also doubt that they'll be rushing to decide anything.
Cloning--or even selling boxed OS X--WOULD bring in a lot of money and new Mac users. No doubt.
AND:
Cloning--or selling boxed OS X--would ALSO cost Apple a lot of money and exact a price. No doubt.
So which is greater? The cost or the benefit?
There are many approaches, including ones we've never thought of, and the landscape is always changing. Maybe the cost/benefit answer won't always be as simple and unchanging as some might think.
Many people assume that ALL cloning scenarios, no matter what the approach, will have a greater cost than benefit. That could be true, but I don't think it's that obvious.
Others are sure Apple has a sure winner if they let other companies have Mac OS X. I don't think that's obvious either.
I'll wait and see what, if anything, Apple cooks up. I doubt they are totally ignoring these questions, but I also doubt that they'll be rushing to decide anything.
Let's NOT do this...
"Apple Support, can I help you?"
"I'm having trouble booting OS X for Intel and getting to the desktop."
"What is your machine?"
"A Dell Dimension 8100 with a Pentium 4 processor"
"I'm sorry, you will need to call Dell for support"
"They don't speak english very well"
"Sorry, I can't help."
Dell is crap - crap parts, support techs don't really speak english. No.
HP - great machines, but had to call support, the new CEO moved tech support to India. No more HP machines here.
IBM - does that come with an eggroll? PCs now in China.
From what I understand, Apple will have tech support in the USA for US customers, and it looks like the Mini is being made here now as well.
If anything, I'm only buying Apple Computers and putting Windows in it when we need to run Windows...
Unless Apple goes the route of Dell, HP, and IBM, 1 computer can run it all (the Intel ones at least).
"Apple Support, can I help you?"
"I'm having trouble booting OS X for Intel and getting to the desktop."
"What is your machine?"
"A Dell Dimension 8100 with a Pentium 4 processor"
"I'm sorry, you will need to call Dell for support"
"They don't speak english very well"
"Sorry, I can't help."
Dell is crap - crap parts, support techs don't really speak english. No.
HP - great machines, but had to call support, the new CEO moved tech support to India. No more HP machines here.
IBM - does that come with an eggroll? PCs now in China.
From what I understand, Apple will have tech support in the USA for US customers, and it looks like the Mini is being made here now as well.
If anything, I'm only buying Apple Computers and putting Windows in it when we need to run Windows...
Unless Apple goes the route of Dell, HP, and IBM, 1 computer can run it all (the Intel ones at least).
DTphonehome said:
i agree. not only is apple not ready to become a mass market company, i'm not so sure they want to. they take too much pride in being the innovative little guy, mocking the big bruisers' clumsiness. they like being the rebels. while it would be great to see windows fall on it's ass, apple would suddenly become the new 'man'. nontheless, porting osx to pcs would screw microsoft and themselves at the same time (in the long run)...
If Apple switched to being a "software" company instead of a "hardware" company I think we'd have to see an increase software prices (especially for the pro apps). Selling copies of OS X wouldn't be enough. I think it would be like Windows and Office. IIRC MS actually loses money on Windows, but makes money hand over fist w/Office. Apple does a similar thing now, they offer very good software at very good prices, but you have to buy their hardware (which is where they make their money). If you cut the hardware out of the picture OS X stays as the inexpensive lure, but the burden of generating a profitable revenue falls to the apps (instead of the hardware). Which means things like DVD SP, Shake, FCP, and even iLife will have to go up (probably a significant amount) in cost.
Assuming all this happens it could effect the strong growth Apple's pro apps have had in the past few years. Apple's biggest advantage right now is price. They offer viable alternatives at, typically, significantly lower prices, but if their prices go up that big advantage slips away.
Lethal
Assuming all this happens it could effect the strong growth Apple's pro apps have had in the past few years. Apple's biggest advantage right now is price. They offer viable alternatives at, typically, significantly lower prices, but if their prices go up that big advantage slips away.
Lethal
Hmm...
Although this may take money away from Mac hardware sales. It think IF anything were to happen Apple would sell Mac OS X for other PC system companies, such as Dell. I don't think these would really be "Mac Clones", the new Intel compatible Mac OS is all that's needed, I mean maybe Apple would add a special chip or add-in something to make the PCs compatible with the Mac OS. I mean this would restrict the kind of computers that can run the Mac OS but, eventually Apple might open up the Mac OS for all systems (thus killing Windows Vista). It would be nice to see Microsoft fumble, it would be bittersweet...but, honestly I don't see Apple doing this.
Although this may take money away from Mac hardware sales. It think IF anything were to happen Apple would sell Mac OS X for other PC system companies, such as Dell. I don't think these would really be "Mac Clones", the new Intel compatible Mac OS is all that's needed, I mean maybe Apple would add a special chip or add-in something to make the PCs compatible with the Mac OS. I mean this would restrict the kind of computers that can run the Mac OS but, eventually Apple might open up the Mac OS for all systems (thus killing Windows Vista). It would be nice to see Microsoft fumble, it would be bittersweet...but, honestly I don't see Apple doing this.
Attachments
link92 said:
iPod is a very select market with a very minimal set of functionality. Adding video, solely under Apple control, doesn't add credence to destroying the uniform coupling of OS X with OS X Hardware.
It won't happen: When you work with Steve and see how vehemently pissed off he gets when this idea keeps surfacing you know the man is serious. Apple is growing because of the uniform marriage of OS X and OS X Hardware. Slowly, consistently the inroads are continuing to climb: one of the most attractive reasons is the consistency customers can expect.
In the Enterprise Space where the markets are just beginning to really get tapped they don't like to deal with being told they will get a controlled and sound system and then to see that go poof just doesn't fly.
If Microsoft started selling Windows Vista PCs they would sell a version for OEMs and a highend version just from Microsoft : ultimately it would **** them over.
You either start with being the OS vendor for 3rd party top to bottom or you are both the OS and main system provider for 3rd party vendors to add value to the products.
You don't switch in mid stride.
