Return of Mac Clones?

[gcyc]

How many threads have I seen on PC boards about people OSX-ing their windows... trying to make it look like the real deal.

It will happen eventually, but I don't think Apple is ready. Not yet, anyway.

 

[mac-er]

As long as Jobs is there.....they won't clone the OS.

It would be dumb. He terminated it because it was eating into high end sales.

Who would by a $1300 iMac when they could get a $300 clone or a $1000 iBook when they could get a $600 clone?

 

[SiliconAddict]

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.

No. Jobs has seen his mortality with his near head on with cancer. He knows he won't be around forever and wants to make HIS company as strong as possible before that happens. I'm almost 100% certain that is what is going on. All of this started soon after his cancer. The whole lets kick some *** in the market share department, the whole Mac Mini thing, the whole lets get tough with people who are leaking our products, etc, etc, etc. It all happened after his cancer. I think Jobs is trying to put Apple in a 20-30% marketshare position so when he retires or dies the company won't be on the edge. Face facts when Apple was jobsless it wasn't making smart choices. What saved Apple was Jobs. If Steve Jobs haven't taken the roll of CEO and lead Apple I'm pretty sure Apple would not be here right now.

 

[SiliconAddict]

As long as Jobs is there.....they won't clone the OS.

It would be dumb. He terminated it because it was eating into high end sales.

Who would by a $1300 iMac when they could get a $300 clone or a $1000 iBook when they could get a $600 clone?

Hence the reason they won't clone the high end....Mac Minis anyone?

 

[rlwimi]

After Jobs blew the IBM relationship, Mac clones became an inevitable step in Apple's desktop hardware endgame.

1) Apple begins gimping desktop PPC system so the hot/slow Intel machines don't look ridiculous when they are finally released next year.

1b) iTunes/iTMS/iPods increasingly dominate Apple growth

2) Apple is embarrassed as they release machines that are expensive and have feature sets that are always six months or more behind the rest of the x86 market.

2b) iTunes/iTMS/iPods increasingly dominate Apple growth

3) Running a hacked copy of OS X on cheaper/faster commodity x86 machines becomes the only way for most Mac users to run OS X.

3b) iTunes/iTMS/iPods increasingly dominate Apple growth

4) With lackluster of sales of the always behind and more expensive x86 boxes Apple looks to generate revenue from the lost OS X sales by creating an OEM/stand alone copy

4b) iTunes/iTMS/iPods increasingly dominate Apple growth

5) The Apple branded x86 machine are phased out

5b) iTunes/iTMS/iPods increasingly dominate Apple growth

6) Funding OS X development through iPod revenues no longer is financially feasible. OS X is canned as the company finishes the transformation into a media/media device company.

Anyone who thinks Apple willing is entering the commodity x86 market or that clones "will increase market-share" are living in a fantasy world. Jobs bungling the IBM relationship sealed the fate of Apple computer hardware. Outside of the board of directors demoting Jobs to a lessened position in charge of just the iTMS/iTunes/iPod part of the company and bringing in a grown up who can mend the IBM relationship, the inevitable death of OS X is just a matter of time.

 

[cryptochrome]

The positive side of clones

Specifically, clones which serve specialized niches of the market which Apple is not addressing. For instance:

Rugged notebooks suitable for the field
Heavily stripped-down kiosk machines
Thin clients
Supercomputers
iPod-shuffle based devices with novel form factors and purpose (jewelry, waterproof, etc.)

OS X Intel makes this extremely doable, as it can be run on machines built from commodity components. An upgrade to the os to enable multi-head, multi-user, networked/distributed computing would enable this nicely.

 

[Sun Baked]

Do you really want Apple to sell out to the rest of the PC industry?

Or do you want Apple to drive the PC market forward as a niche player through their own brand of innovation ...

Of course people hate Apple's innovative methods, because it destroys backward compatibility for hardware and software.

But who do you think will force companies to bring PCI express cards to the market faster?

Apple's new dual core PowerMac G5, or the year or more the PC makers have been including these cards in their computers.

 

[cgundlach]

With the switch to Intel, in particular, I don't see any upside to Apple for clones. Apple will have access to mainstream hardware in order to build their computers. A couple of reasons that a lot of people don't buy macs is 1) they feel that they can't really compare Apples to er, Dells since the hardware is so different 2) fear of lock in. The new Macs should fix both of those problems.

Even though Mac hardware will still be more expensive than a Dell, for instance, won't be a real issue. The iPod is not the cheapest MP3 player. The fact is for most home users, their hardware is already more than they really need. Other factors will come into play, like style, noise, and perceived "coolness". Note that Dell is trying to build a more "exclusive" line.

 

[Sunrunner]

This would be the best way to kill the brand quality, and the related good name Apple is building for itself....

 

[Lynxpro]

The PC architecture was incredibly simple. A very small BIOS and an OS that booted off of tape or disk. All the other parts were off the shelf and the graphics and sound were all on ISA cards anyway.

And the IBM PC was an open platform because the company was still suffering from an anti-trust lawsuit from the Justice Department. Otherwise, IBM would not have went to Intel for the microprocessor or farmed out the operating system. Everything would have been in-house. Probably yet another reason why IBM did not buy a 50% stake in Atari Inc. that Warner Communications was offering back in 1980.

 

[Lynxpro]

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.

Thanks for the props, Ben.

Licensing would also expand OS X into areas of the PC industry that Apple is not interested in. For example, giving a license to Alienware or Falcon Northwest would be a way to increase mind/marketshare for OS X for PC gamers without Apple taking a risk. And considering Jobs thinks media center PCs are doomed, then Apple could license OS X for use in such applications to companies like HP or Sony who actually are interested in those niche markets. All without risk.

Targeted licensing does not mean the local mom&pop screwdriver shop will be making their own Mac clones of dubious quality.

 

[Lynxpro]

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.

Apple is a $50 billion market value company because of the iPod. Microsoft does not have an iPod. Thus your analogy is flawed.

 

[ender78]

I don't know much about Jonathan Ive but as far as I know, he knows little about chipset design. People need to remember that Apple will be using what may ammount to commodity hardware. Apple's hardware design role will be more limited. Apple is likely to use a stock Intel mobo and modify that package to its own needs. It may be quite easy to build a duplicate of the Macintel box from off the shelf parts. Whatever is invisioned for copy protection will be the only line of defense. Apple can reap significant profits from licensing [charging certain manufactureres $80-200 for rights to manufacture specific licensed hardware].

 

[Mac Me Up]

1) Apple begins gimping desktop PPC system so the hot/slow Intel machines don't look ridiculous when they are finally released next year.

I think you've missed the boat at point 1. PPC systems are the hot slow ones - I don't think anyone really believes that PPC is better than intel stuff anymore do they? Point in case - I own a powerbook and an intel centrino notebook - and only one of them is good for cooking bacon on. I'll give you a hint, it's not the one with Intel inside.

 

[Performa]

Pay More....and get a good computer

Well, let's hope they get it right this time, if indeed this actually happens. This is inevitable, though, if Apple wants to increase market share. Their biggest obstacle is the high price of their hardware, but, if someone could install OSX on a Dell, then that will blow everything wide open.

There seem to be a lot of "cheap screws" out there.

 

[bbyrdhouse]

Does anyone here picture Apple as a software company only?

It seems that I remember Jobs saying a couple of years ago that Apple would not become a software company like a Microsoft, but that hardware would always be their main focus.

Of course as another poster pointed out already Steve says one thing and then changes often. Perhaps this is what makes Apple such a unique company.

To change the subject, I sent my Powerbook off for repair on Monday (Superdrive problems) and it came back today.(Fast service) They not only replaced the superdrive but also the screen and the battery all at no cost. That experience with the service dept. alone will keep me buying Apple in the future.

 

[Lynxpro]

Apple is growing because of the uniform marriage of OS X and OS X Hardware.

Apple is growing because the iPod/iTunes runs on Windows. Don't kid yourself that its because of OS X being locked to Mac hardware. Because that didn't make Apple's stock jump prior to the iPod becoming a success.

Hell, Apple could sell Windows based computers that most consumers would think as teriffic if the iApps came bundled with them.

Its the apps, not OS X. OS X is the side benefit. You think Joe Sixpack gives a rip about BSD underpinnings? Joe Sixpack would run Microsoft Bob if it worked.

 

[Lynxpro]

Who would by a $1300 iMac when they could get a $300 clone or a $1000 iBook when they could get a $600 clone?

Why do people buy Apple Cinema displays when they could buy cheaper models from the actual manufacturer who produces the product? Or buy the same thing at below cost from Dell?

Why do people buy iPods that have traditionally been more expensive than the competition?

Why do people still buy iBooks/Powerbooks when laptops in PC land have Pentium processors that run laps around the G4?

If I type any more "whys" I'm going to sound like Nancy Kerrigan.

 

[bbyrdhouse]

Apple is growing because the iPod/iTunes runs on Windows. Don't kid yourself that its because of OS X being locked to Mac hardware. Because that didn't make Apple's stock jump prior to the iPod becoming a success.

Hell, Apple could sell Windows based computers that most consumers would think as teriffic if the iApps came bundled with them.

Its the apps, not OS X. OS X is the side benefit. You think Joe Sixpack gives a rip about BSD underpinnings? Joe Sixpack would run Microsoft Bob if it worked.

Could not have said it any better!

 

[Sun Baked]

It seems that I remember Jobs saying a couple of years ago that Apple would not become a software company like a Microsoft, but that hardware would always be their main focus.

Of course as another poster pointed out already Steve says one thing and then changes often. Perhaps this is what makes Apple such a unique company.

Apple does listen to consumers if the product fits into their strategy.

However, people have also been screaming and yelling for a brand new Newton.

Consumers aren't screaming and yelling for clones, it's Dell screaming and yelling for a chunk of Apple's computer hardware profits.

The consumers keep asking Apple for lower priced computers ... not a Dell capable of running OS X.

If they want a Dell running OS X, it better be the one they already own.

 

[Lynxpro]

6) Funding OS X development through iPod revenues no longer is financially feasible. OS X is canned as the company finishes the transformation into a media/media device company.
Anyone who thinks Apple willing is entering the commodity x86 market or that clones "will increase market-share" are living in a fantasy world. Jobs bungling the IBM relationship sealed the fate of Apple computer hardware. Outside of the board of directors demoting Jobs to a lessened position in charge of just the iTMS/iTunes/iPod part of the company and bringing in a grown up who can mend the IBM relationship, the inevitable death of OS X is just a matter of time.

Apple spends less than $20 million per year on OS X development as it is. Read the financial reports.

Besides, if Apple can't work on it anymore, Google will just buy it up. Google can sneeze $20 million.

 

[DakotaGuy]

In the future if Apple really wanted to grow their marketshare they would have to open it up for clones again. They have a hard enough time keeping up with production numbers at this time. Cloning again could be very successful in the long term.

Everyone who says it is different this time around is right. Apple would not have any problems getting some of the big players to look at producing a clone once the transition to x86 is complete. The other companies will already then have boxes that will be just like Apple's internally and be ready to run OSX for Intel. I am sure they will come up with some way of making OSX only run on certain, "approved" machines, but the other companies would be very interested in making a clone this time around. Before they would have had to sink a lot of money in developing a PPC computer to run it and now they don't.

Do you really think the only reason Jobs switched to Intel was because they will use less power someday? Yes, that is a good reason, and I am sure their roadmap in the future looks better, but I don' think it is too crazy to think that he has another idea in mind.

Everyone saying that Jobs will never do something after he says the idea bad is wrong. He has done it many times. Flash drive MP3 players were "no good" then comes the Shuffle. Intel is "no good" and soon they will be out. Putting a drive sideways behind the screen in an iMac is a bad idea, then the iMac G5 comes out. CRT is dead and a few months later they released the eMac. It has happened time and time again. Does Jobs have a vision of clones in the future. He might even though he would look at you today and say that is the dumbest idea he ever heard of.

If a company like Sony was to build a clone and it was a good machine and cheaper then the Mac, I would buy one.

 

[Lynxpro]

But who do you think will force companies to bring PCI express cards to the market faster?

Uhm, newsflash here. Apple was the last computer manufacturer to ship a PCIe capable system. The PC side of the market always has the latest video cards.

 

[Sun Baked]

Uhm, newsflash here. Apple was the last computer manufacturer to ship a PCIe capable system. The PC side of the market always has the latest video cards.

News flash, I'm not talking about video cards ...

In the market for pro audio cards/sata cards/SCSI cards/etc. for your new dual core PowerMac, where are the cards? it's been a long time and Apple is the "last" to switch.

Who will force the market to switch faster, Apple or Dell?

With Dell, there isn't an incentive for these companies to switch quickly, since they have PCI slots for backward compatibility.

 

[oskar]

Apple is incredibly stronger than ever. Their market share in computers continues to grow even with the many people that think their laptop line is the weakest. It must be because of the iPod, but OS X has been a stong seller for Apple as well.
I find it kind of strange that Apple would allow OS X licensing or mac clones after announcing that they are trying to make the best computers and that that's why they're going to Intel. However if licensing was their ultimate goal, switching to Intel would be a first logical step... so who knows?
I think it would be at least another two years before we get any real updates on any of these moves.