Everyone almost without exception wants not to see clones. The reason they give is that it will destroy Apple's hardware business, or it will allow other people to buy products they don't want to buy themselves.
Well, the second argument is just silly. They, clones, may strike you as ugly, or not what you want, but if nothing was ever sold someone didn't like the look of, or someone didn't want to buy, the world would be a poorer place. If you don't want them, well, they are not being made for you, but you are not the only customers in the world. These feelings are simply irrelevant from a business strategy point of view.
The first argument is often made by people who also feel that Apple hardware is far better than the trashy stuff made by Dell, has better components, and is about the same price or even cheaper. And they feel that the integration of having the OS and the hardware under the control of one supplier improves the user experience.
If all this is true, why should selling the OS separately destroy the hardware business? Surely, people will carry on buying all this wonderful hardware at the same or lower prices? Dell will be unable to undercut Apple. In addition, the integrated experience from buying genuine Apple stuff will still be far better, and so people will carry on buying into that too. Especially as there will be no premium involved.
It is really an incomprehensible argument when you think about it. People seem to be arguing that product A is better and cheaper than product B, but if we allow product B to be sold, everyone will buy it, and no-one will buy B. It is like arguing that Fords are better and cheaper than Hondas, but if we allow Honda to open a dealership in our town, no-one will buy Fords any more. It doesn't make any sense.
There are only two ways out of this. One is to agree that the hardware is not better, or not better enough. The other is to agree that the integrated experience is not better, or not better enough.
I am a long term Apple user from way back, from before System 6 in fact, so I am not a knocker. I just would like people to make logical and consistent arguments when they think about this issue. If they do, they will be obliged to a very uncomfortable conclusion. The hardware is not different. The disks, memory, processors etc are all the same. The experience is better, but not because of integration, but because the OS is better. The hardware costs are and always have been uncompetitive. So, the company needs to change, get the costs out, and sell the hell out of the software. As one poster has said, it needs to have two divisions, a hardware business unit, and a software business unit.
The two are being pulled in different directions. The hardware people need to make stuff that any OS runs on, because that's how they maximize sales and returns. And they need to be cost competitive. The OS people need to sell as many copies as possible, and that means to any hardware anyone wants to use, not just the in-house hardware. Yes, some people want the integrated experience, whatever that is, but they are not the only market a company should sell to. Look after us, but not to the exclusion of everyone else. Because if you do, you will end up too small to be able to look after us, in the end.
And "most people" are gonna shell out for Aperture (which won't run on less than a gig of RAM) and/or Photoshop (which I wouldn't say runs "well" on only a half gig of RAM)?
