Should Apple allow cloneing of iOS to 3ed parties?

[PracticalMac]

Android and WindowsP can be licensed to anyone who makes the hardware, lots of hardware versions to choose from, and highly competitive market.

Unlike open cloneing, what I suggest is selling it to companies that want to build niche products, such as kiosks, industrial (as in super rugged), water proof, and such, markets Apple would not cater to.

 

[MacDawg]

Will.Never.Happen.

Not in Apple's business model

 

[Pressure]

They already did this, it didn't work out.

That way you cannot ensure proper integration between software and hardware.

A quote Steve Jobs brought to the audience back in 2007 when Apple introduced the iPhone is really relevant.

"People who are really serious about software should make their own hardware."

And that is what Apple will do. This is about control and you only need one rotten apple to infect the idea and power of the brand.

 

[uberamd]

No. The reason I like iOS is because of how integrated it is. It feels like it was designed for the hardware, which is ideal.

Android, in contrast, wasn't designed for a particular device. Thus you have incredibly slow updates being released to customers, if they even get updates at all, because the device manufacturer needs to get the update from Google, modify it to fit the hardware, then push it to end users. Having different hardware outside of the default device makes users dependent on another 3rd party for updates. And guess what, many 3rd parties don't feel obligated to provide updates once they have your money.

 

[MrWillie]

So we can have cheap Chinese knock offs that don't work ? Never. It is bad enough that some people refer to the cheap Andriods as iPads. (See the Walgreen's tablet reviews).

No. The reason I like iOS is because of how integrated it is. It feels like it was designed for the hardware, which is ideal.

Android, in contrast, wasn't designed for a particular device. Thus you have incredibly slow updates being released to customers, if they even get updates at all, because the device manufacturer needs to get the update from Google, modify it to fit the hardware, then push it to end users. Having different hardware outside of the default device makes users dependent on another 3rd party for updates. And guess what, many 3rd parties don't feel obligated to provide updates once they have your money.

No, that can't be. Many Andriod fanboys have posted that Andriod is an open system and is not fragmented. So your statement can't be correct. The fanboys aren't wrong. (Insert sarcasm emotion here).

 

[grapes911]

Apple is a hardware company, not a software company. They make their money on computers and devices. Unless they completely shift their business model to that of a software company (which they sort of tried before with little success), then we won't see this happen.

 

[Pressure]

Apple is a hardware company, not a software company. They make their money on computers and devices. Unless they completely shift their business model to that of a software company (which they sort of tried before with little success), then we won't see this happen.

You are so wrong.

They even removed Computers (to Apple Inc.) from their name 4 years ago to reflect this.

They are both a software and hardware company.

 

[MrWillie]

You are so wrong.

They even removed Computers (to Apple Inc.) from their name 4 years ago to reflect this.

They are both a software and hardware company.

You beat me to it. They are BOTH.

 

[BaldiMac]

What would be the benefit to licensing iOS for consumers? There might be some free ePhones instead of $49 iPhones. Does that difference matter to that many people when you are signing a 2 year contract for $70/month?

 

[grapes911]

You are so wrong.

They even removed Computers (to Apple Inc.) from their name 4 years ago to reflect this.

They are both a software and hardware company.

They changed the name to reflect all hardware not just computers. The word computer seemed to ignore iPods and other non-computer devices.

Obviously they produce software, but they are clearly a hardware company. Software is such a small portion of their revenue. Heck, they give iOS away for free.

 

[0815]

Android and WindowsP can be licensed to anyone who makes the hardware, lots of hardware versions to choose from, and highly competitive market.

Unlike open cloneing, what I suggest is selling it to companies that want to build niche products, such as kiosks, industrial (as in super rugged), water proof, and such, markets Apple would not cater to.

Apple almost went belly up doing this with the OS for the desktops - won't happen again.

 

[mheidt]

Obviously they produce software, but they are clearly a hardware company. Software is such a small portion of their revenue. Heck, they give iOS away for free.

Actually I'm buying Apple because of the software.
It's both.

Or is HP an ink and not a printer manufacturer?

 

[uberamd]

They changed the name to reflect all hardware not just computers. The word computer seemed to ignore iPods and other non-computer devices.

Obviously they produce software, but they are clearly a hardware company. Software is such a small portion of their revenue. Heck, they give iOS away for free.

What is a MacBook Pro without OS X? What is an iPhone without iOS? What is an iPad without iOS? Sounds to me like Apple is equally a hardware and software company.

 

[grapes911]

Actually I'm buying Apple because of the software.
It's both.

Or is HP an ink and not a printer manufacturer?

I don't think your personal buying habits determine Apple's primary revenue streams.

HP is and ink and printer manufacturer, but it doesn't change the fact that HP is primarily a hardware company. Microsoft makes the Zune and Xbox, but they are still a software company. Newegg sells T-shirts, it doesn't make them a clothing store.

What is a MacBook Pro without OS X? What is an iPhone without iOS? What is an iPad without iOS? Sounds to me like Apple is equally a hardware and software company.

Without OS X? The MacBook is a piece of hardware that runs other OSes just like any other hardware manufacturer (HP, Dell, etc.).

Check an Apple press release about quarterly revenue. The first thing they do is announce how many Macs, iPods, iPhones, and iPads they sold. Nowhere do they ever even mention software.



Edit: I know it sounds as if we are off topic, but I believe this is the heart of the issue. A software company (like Microsoft) would have licensed their software and operating systems to various hardware companies, such as the OP suggested.

 

[uberamd]

Without OS X? The MacBook is a piece of hardware that runs other OSes just like any other hardware manufacturer (HP, Dell, etc.).

But where is the incentive to buy a Mac if OS X doesn't come with it? The hardware was tailored for the software, and the software was tailored for the hardware. Apple didn't get where they are today by selling hardware only. To think otherwise is foolish. Each part is equally important. I don't know ANYONE who purchased a Mac so they can exclusively run Windows. I'm sure there are people out there who did, but not many.

 

[Winni]

They changed the name to reflect all hardware not just computers. The word computer seemed to ignore iPods and other non-computer devices.

Obviously they produce software, but they are clearly a hardware company. Software is such a small portion of their revenue. Heck, they give iOS away for free.

Software is such a small portion of their revenue? Are you reading other reports than the rest of the world? The entire iTunes and App Store business falls under software, and that's where they shovel the money. No research or engineering and only low operational costs - the iTunes machinery is almost net income.

They don't have to charge for iOS because its development is subsidized by the iTunes store. If they wanted, they could even give away the iPad for free because the device is almost useless without iTunes pay-for content.

 

[Pressure]

They changed the name to reflect all hardware not just computers. The word computer seemed to ignore iPods and other non-computer devices.

Obviously they produce software, but they are clearly a hardware company. Software is such a small portion of their revenue. Heck, they give iOS away for free.

The hardware just doesn't function without the software.

They are highly integral part of each other. What makes iOS work is the software and how it interacts with the hardware.

Software is very important to Apple. This is the front-end, that greets every Apple user. They are very focused on usability.

I am pretty sure they use more money on software than hardware development.

 

[MrWillie]

They changed the name to reflect all hardware not just computers. The word computer seemed to ignore iPods and other non-computer devices.

Obviously they produce software, but they are clearly a hardware company. Software is such a small portion of their revenue. Heck, they give iOS away for free.

But without iOS, OSX, iTunes their hardware is nothing.

 

[el-John-o]

I have a little gem at home called a "Power Computer PowerTower Pro", this was a 266MHz PC made by a company OTHER than Apple, and ran Mac OS 8. This was Apples short, failed experiment on licensing their OS to other manufacturers. The problem was, just like the problem with Android in some cases, is that the system was not made up to the standards of the OS maker, and Apple couldn't support it! They got support calls that turned out to be hardware issues, and the manufacturers wouldn't help their customers. Furthermore, they found that some of these models were built so sub-par spec wise, that there were complaints about certain features of the OS not working at all! I upgraded mine to OS 9 but only after upgrading the RAM. I like my PowerTower, but it was nothing near the reliability and performance of the Apple Macs. In fact, if you bumped into it, it crashed, just like that. Literally, completely locked up. It also had this funny thing (and common problem) that it would not boot unless there was some sort of disc in the CD drive. It was also considerably bigger and heavier than any Mac, and it was beige in a time when Apple was trying to prove that Beige was dead!

All in all, Apple didn't like having their product on a PC like that, it wasn't their business model. Macintosh was supposed to run on streamlined high performance machines (back then, the specs of those machines toppled most PC's in a BIG way, the original PowerBook was the fastest laptop in the world at the time, equivalent of today's macbook having a quad-core i7 and Mobility Radeon HD5870 or something), if companies wanted to build stuff like this, they could use Intel processors and run Windows.

Another big issue was driver support, mine had a Twin Turbo brand graphics card, it had one version of the driver... ever... Apple didn't make it, and that small group of non-apple hardware manufacturers didn't warrant a big need for hardware makers to make Mac OS drivers. Apple used ATi cards in their machines.

All in all, Apple only did it for I think 2 years, and were very unhappy with the outcome. Now, most Android devices have some sort of modification to make it cater to THAT device, which is possible with an Open Source OS (only the Nexus phones are Vanilla Android), with iOS it wouldn't be. Not to mention, what is the biggest complaint about Android? That it's not streamlined enough, it's choppy, it's not as "spit and polish" as iOS. That's not COMPLETELY an Android issue, it's an issue of tons of hardware manufacturers trying to run the same OS! Look at the "spit and polish" difference between Windows and Mac! When you make an OS cater to ONE device, you can make it scream, that's what Apple has ALWAYS done, and that is what they will continue to do.

PowerTower Pro circa 1998 - NO USB, NO included modem, Slow

Came out the same time as

iMac, circa 1998 - Fast, ONLY USB, Built-In Modem for the "Internet Mac"

See why Apple was unhappy with third party manufacturers?

 

[mrboult]

^^^^^^^

I am pretty sure that Steve/Apple have said in the past that they consider themselves a software company primarily.

And I would agree. I think more of Apples success is based on their wonderful software than the fact that their hardware looks pretty.

The primary reason for making their own hardware is to achieve perfect integration with the software.

I buy apple products because of their great software not because they look pretty. And I think most mac users I know would agree. (not that I don't also enjoy how nice the products are themselves)

 

[maflynn]

Absolutely not.

They did this many years ago and it nearly killed them. Apple's software is the mechanism that drives hardware sales. If apple licenses iOS, they'll lose out on hardware sales, pure and simple.

 

[grapes911]

Software is such a small portion of their revenue? Are you reading other reports than the rest of the world? The entire iTunes and App Store business falls under software, and that's where they shovel the money. No research or engineering and only low operational costs - the iTunes machinery is almost net income.

Apparently, I must be. Here is their report from October. They don't really mention software at all. They make it a point to highlight hardware sales right at the top.

As for the iTunes and the App Store, I find it difficult to consider them "software". Wouldn't that be similar to calling Amazon a software company?

 

[tbrinkma]

Actually I'm buying Apple because of the software.
It's both.

Or is HP an ink and not a printer manufacturer?

Priced upwards of $5000/gallon, HP's primary business (so far as inkjet printers goes) is ink.

 

[el-John-o]

Priced upwards of $5000/gallon, HP's primary business (so far as inkjet printers goes) is ink.

ABSOLUTELY they are an ink Manufacturer, MOST consumer-grade inkjet printer manufacturers are. Look at Lexark, they practically give away their low end printers! Certain Inket models from several companies actually COST the company money, they sell them BELOW cost, but use chips to prevent refilling, and proprietary (and expensive) ink cartridges!

 

[nwcs]

But without iOS, OSX, iTunes their hardware is nothing.

It's actually the reverse razor blade scenario. In that case they supply software in support of their hardware. Gillette, for example, makes money off the razor blades and not on the razor which is why the razors themselves are usually given away. Apple's the reverse. They make a lot of software and basically break even on the digital file front in order to move the hardware. Both are necessary but their bread and butter is in the hardware and not software.