Saw 10.4.1 Running On a PC Laptop Today
John
RUNNING OS X on a Intel laptop today. Played with it a few minutes and
it seemed to work great. Apple should just go ahead and sell OS X to
everybody and wipe out Windows.
George Graves
John <nos...@nospam.com> wrote:
But it wouldn't wipe out Windows. It would marginalize OSX and Apple
would go the way of NeXT. Not a great idea.
Belphegor
George Graves wrote:
> It would marginalize OSX and Apple
> would go the way of NeXT. Not a great idea.
Can you explain why?
Lefty Bigfoot
(in article
<gmgraves-4E3B17...@newsclstr02.news.prodigy.com>):
Dvorak disagrees completely, and for a rare time in history, I
agree with him. He has blogged about it quite a bit recently,
although he has said that if Apple goes over the DRM cliff the
same way Microsoft is heading, they'll both be leaving the door
wide open for Linux. Nobody wants an OS where the provider
decides what you can do with your own hardware.
--
_ __ _
| | ___ / _| |_ _ _
| | / _ \ |_| __| | | |
| |__| __/ _| |_| |_| |
|_____\___|_| \__|\__, |
|___/
All of God's creatures have a place..........
.........right next to the potatoes and gravy.
imout...@mac.com
George Graves wrote:
> In article <11ik17g...@news.supernews.com>,
> John <nos...@nospam.com> wrote:
>
> > Showed up at a meeting today and noticed one of the attendees was
> > RUNNING OS X on a Intel laptop today. Played with it a few minutes and
> > it seemed to work great. Apple should just go ahead and sell OS X to
> > everybody and wipe out Windows.
>
> But it wouldn't wipe out Windows.
It could a big dent in it.
> It would marginalize OSX
How so? We haven't seen the Intel Apple product yet, but today's x86
hardware shares a lot with Mac PPC hardware, eg Dell and gateway buy
portables from the same Chinese factory that Apple uses.
What, exactly, is so special about the Apple logo on an x86 box that
will prevent the company from becoming marginalized?
IOW, what's the Apple secret sauce that's going to make an Apple x86
box different from an eg. Dell box?
> and Apple would go the way of NeXT. Not a great idea.
I don't see the basis for that opinion.
The PC market is 200 million sales per year.
Apple's got ~2.5% of that market right now, but makes most of its money
from software and iPod sales, and its big-ticket G5 sales are tanking.
5% market penetration, 10M OS sales per year, at $100 per would be
$1B/yr in pure profit.
So getting back to its 15% highwater mark last seen in 1993 would be
$3B/yr in pure profit.
And note that the more OS licenses it sells the more Apple-brand
software it will sell too.
Looking at financials, Apple's making 30% gross margin on an average
$1500 hardware sale, or $300 per machine.
For Apple to break-even on OS licensing, it needs to sell 3 licenses
for every lost hardware sale.
George Graves
imout...@mac.com wrote:
> George Graves wrote:
> > In article <11ik17g...@news.supernews.com>,
> > John <nos...@nospam.com> wrote:
> >
> > > Showed up at a meeting today and noticed one of the attendees was
> > > RUNNING OS X on a Intel laptop today. Played with it a few minutes and
> > > it seemed to work great. Apple should just go ahead and sell OS X to
> > > everybody and wipe out Windows.
> >
> > But it wouldn't wipe out Windows.
>
> It could a big dent in it.
>
> > It would marginalize OSX
>
> How so? We haven't seen the Intel Apple product yet, but today's x86
> hardware shares a lot with Mac PPC hardware, eg Dell and gateway buy
> portables from the same Chinese factory that Apple uses.
>
> What, exactly, is so special about the Apple logo on an x86 box that
> will prevent the company from becoming marginalized?
Because if OSX ran on any Intel box, there would be no reason to buy a
Mac, and Apple would be out of the hardware industry. A no hardware
Apple would be gone very soon, just like a no-hardware NeXT and for the
same reasons.
>
> IOW, what's the Apple secret sauce that's going to make an Apple x86
> box different from an eg. Dell box?
>
> > and Apple would go the way of NeXT. Not a great idea.
>
> I don't see the basis for that opinion.
>
> The PC market is 200 million sales per year.
>
> Apple's got ~2.5% of that market right now, but makes most of its money
> from software and iPod sales, and its big-ticket G5 sales are tanking.
>
> 5% market penetration, 10M OS sales per year, at $100 per would be
> $1B/yr in pure profit.
>
> So getting back to its 15% highwater mark last seen in 1993 would be
> $3B/yr in pure profit.
>
> And note that the more OS licenses it sells the more Apple-brand
> software it will sell too.
>
> Looking at financials, Apple's making 30% gross margin on an average
> $1500 hardware sale, or $300 per machine.
Where do you get that 30% figure? I was under the impression that
Apple's gross margins were about half that.
> For Apple to break-even on OS licensing, it needs to sell 3 licenses
> for every lost hardware sale.
And they wouldn't sell that many.
George Graves
"Belphegor" <hue...@gmail.com> wrote:
See my response to Imoutahere
Lefty Bigfoot
(in article
>> What, exactly, is so special about the Apple logo on an x86 box that
>> will prevent the company from becoming marginalized?
>
> Because if OSX ran on any Intel box, there would be no reason to buy a
> Mac,
Guess what. Software has higher margins typically than computer
hardware. So Apple would make more profit. Notice the market
cap of Microsoft, then compare that with the cap of Dell.
Wonder why. Ding. lightbulb.
> and Apple would be out of the hardware industry.
Apple is a media company now anyway, Software is just a less
interesting form of media than music of video.
> A no hardware Apple would be gone very soon,
No, it would probably double the stock price over the next 24
months once the massive profits from huge incremental sales on
the same basically fixed amount of development expense started
rolling in. Besides, if you really aren't happy without
hardware, there is always the iPod line to take comfort in.
> just like a no-hardware NeXT and for the same reasons.
NeXT failed for the lack of distribution channel. Apple doesn't
have that problem. They simply put OS X86 up for sale on their
website tomorrow afternoon, and the orders come pouring in. If
they wanted to do it better, they could pick a couple of
reference platforms in addition to their own (seems like Intel
white-boxes would be an obvious first choice).
>> For Apple to break-even on OS licensing, it needs to sell 3 licenses
>> for every lost hardware sale.
>
> And they wouldn't sell that many.
Bull. I'd buy three copies of it tomorrow afternoon. If they
didn't try to rape and pillage on pricing, for example if they
discounted it to get it out there for a while, say $89 instead
of $189, even better. One week, the mac apologists tell us that
Apple can go for years without selling a computer because their
financial position is so good, then the next week the same folks
tell us that Apple will go under if they allow OS X to be sold
on alternative hardware. You can't have it both ways, unless
your major in college was Advanced Hypocrisy.
Apple could even GIVE AWAY OSx86 for 12 months, while selling
iPods, whatever dwindling PPC hardware sales they still have and
iTunes song downloads, and seed the market with a zillion copies
of a far better OS than Windows. Or, to protect the notion that
it isn't free, they could sell it for $15, and watch Microsoft
go insane between now and the Vista launch. Now is /the/ time
to do it, before Microsoft sucks another $200 out of every
person on the planet with a PC.
GreyCloud
Where did he get OS X from? Also, what brand of laptop?
Tom Elam
wrote:
>> For Apple to break-even on OS licensing, it needs to sell 3 licenses
>> for every lost hardware sale.
>
>And they wouldn't sell that many.
Right for once, OS X really sucks that bad. They would be lucky to
sell half as many units as they bundle with their overpriced machines
today.
John
I assume it was a hacked copy. I think it is available on the file
sharing networks.
imout...@mac.com
> In article <1126833735.7...@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
> imout...@mac.com wrote:
>
> > What, exactly, is so special about the Apple logo on an x86 box that
> > will prevent the company from becoming marginalized?
>
> Because if OSX ran on any Intel box, there would be no reason to buy a
> Mac, and Apple would be out of the hardware industry.
Isn't it already? What's the big deal about slapping an Apple logo on
an x86 box?
Is it just the the average $500 of gross margin selling the box gives
Apple?
Apple gets much better gross margins selling software.
> A no hardware
> Apple would be gone very soon, just like a no-hardware NeXT and for the
> same reasons.
I disagree. NeXT was caught between the dual hammers of Macintosh at
its competitive peak and the Windows 3.x/95 boom. Not to mention SGI,
which was feeling its oats in the early 1990s.
As of now, the Apple of old is dead. SGI is circling the bowl, and
Windows is dominant as it has ever been, yet Vista is a pretty big
gamble for the company.
x86 is the settled standard. Person buying an x86 box has two choices:
Linux or Windows. Apple could and should IMV join this game, instead of
trying to maintain a Mac-label boutique ghetto in x86 land.
Well, they can still sell Apple-labelled PCs, but wouldn't it be cool
if the Apple Store sold Sony and HP machines that ran OS X?
> > Looking at financials, Apple's making 30% gross margin on an average
> > $1500 hardware sale, or $300 per machine.
>
> Where do you get that 30% figure? I was under the impression that
> Apple's gross margins were about half that.
No, Dell's are 18-20%. For 3Q05 Apple posted a 29.6% gross margin. This
includes 1/3 of sales that were iPods, and those come in at 22%
apparently, software is only 10% of sales so doesn't have much an
effect on gross margin.
> > For Apple to break-even on OS licensing, it needs to sell 3 licenses
> > for every lost hardware sale.
>
> And they wouldn't sell that many.
Dunno. With $7B in the bank they don't have to worry about cashflow for
a while.
Getting sales churn on a 200M unit market looks more profitable than
servicing a 20M market.
Now that Apple's ditching their own design work I feel no strong need
to buy a Mac anymore. "Intel Inside" is "Intel Inside" is "Intel
Inside" as far as I am concerned, and I think I can do a better job of
putting together an x86 box than Apple can.
llort
You mean wiped out by Windows.
Snit
3epki19ealh55sm61...@4ax.com on 9/15/05 11:29 PM:
while you may think that is what would happen, I am confident that is *not*
what John meant. You have show, however, that you were not able to
comprehend his comments.
--
Picture of a tuna milkshake: http://snipurl.com/f34z
Feel free to ask for the recipe.
_________________________________________
Usenet Zone Free Binaries Usenet Server
More than 140,000 groups
Unlimited download
http://www.usenetzone.com to open account
Tim Smith
llort <ll...@xuscam.com> wrote:
> >it seemed to work great. Apple should just go ahead and sell OS X to
> >everybody and wipe out Windows.
>
> You mean wiped out by Windows.
So your theory would be that the reason Mac users buy Macs is for the
hardware, not the software?
What do you think would happen if Microsoft offered a port of Windows to
Mac hardware? Would it wipe out OS X?
When Apple switches to OS X, do you expect a lot of people to run
Windows on their x86 Macs instead of OS X?
--
--Tim Smith
Rick
> In article <3epki19ealh55sm61...@4ax.com>,
> llort <ll...@xuscam.com> wrote:
>> >it seemed to work great. Apple should just go ahead and sell OS X to
>> >everybody and wipe out Windows.
>>
>> You mean wiped out by Windows.
>
> So your theory would be that the reason Mac users buy Macs is for the
> hardware, not the software?
No, the theory is that some people buy Macs is to use the MacOS, others to
use Mac hardware, others for both, but they all have to buy Mac hardware,
which generates most of the revenue for Apple.
>
> What do you think would happen if Microsoft offered a port of Windows to
> Mac hardware? Would it wipe out OS X?
>
> When Apple switches to OS X, do you expect a lot of people to run
> Windows on their x86 Macs instead of OS X?
That wouldn't matter as long as people bought the Macs. Selling only OS X
takes the hardware purchase out of the equation, and reduces net income to
Apple.
--
Rick
Flint
> In article <3epki19ealh55sm61...@4ax.com>,
> llort <ll...@xuscam.com> wrote:
>
>>>it seemed to work great. Apple should just go ahead and sell OS X to
>>>everybody and wipe out Windows.
>>
>>You mean wiped out by Windows.
>
>
> So your theory would be that the reason Mac users buy Macs is for the
> hardware, not the software?
>
> What do you think would happen if Microsoft offered a port of Windows to
> Mac hardware? Would it wipe out OS X?
Uhmm, how do I put this? Lets see... No.
> When Apple switches to OS X,
"When Apple switches to OS X" ?????
> do you expect a lot of people to run
> Windows on their x86 Macs instead of OS X?
"Instead of"... no. In *addition* to - most definitely.
Thats *exactly* why Apple SHOULD release OS X for all x86 platforms *now*.
I suspect Apple is counting on something of a "Katrina effect" where
they hope Windows users will 'spill over' into the Mac soup bowl and
eventually buy their hardware. The problem is that Apple's hardware
development cycles generally lag the rest of the industry by 12 to 24
months as it is, and there is really nothing to indicate this will
change. There will always be a demand for newer, faster, more powerful
hardware, which at the moment, the existing x86 sector seems to be
better at providing with more timely development-to-shelves cycles. The
net effect is that Apple would see/enjoy an initial inrush of users, but
ultimately this would taper off (like the 'equalization' of the water
level between Lake Ponthchartrain and New Orleans), as Apple's
developmental cycles are still the very thing that, essentially,
constrains the >size< of their 'bowl'... so to speak.
By offering OS X to x86 users, they effectively *increase* the size of
their 'bowl', and revenues to their coffers. The market/demand for OS X
by x86 users is far larger (probably by an order of magnitude) than the
one where x86 users wanting to abandon their existing hardware, or
future x86 based hardware for something that still has a tenacious
proprietary grip.
-Rick
Flint
> That wouldn't matter as long as people bought the Macs. Selling only OS X
> takes the hardware purchase out of the equation, and reduces net income to
> Apple.
>
This is a 'glass half empty' line of thinking.
It only reduces per unit >profit margins<. Their >net income< OTOH,
(quite a different thing) would likely increase because of volume sales,
by an order of magnitude no less.
Additionally, there's nothing to stop Apple from continuing to design,
build and sell pretty boxes... unless of course the rumors about those
pretty boxes are *true*, and that they're indeed mediocre hardware.
-Rick
-hh
>
> Guess what. Software has higher margins typically than computer
> hardware.
Guess what: software can be pirated and infinitely duplicated, whereas
hardware cannot.
Financially, what good does it to Apple if 500 million PC's in China
are running one legal copy of OS X? Absolutely zippo.
> Apple is a media company now anyway...
Yes, but it is manifested as media *hardware* (iPod), with the
appropriate supporting services.
> Bull. I'd buy three copies of it tomorrow afternoon. If they
> didn't try to rape and pillage on pricing...
Gosh, there's the "If".
This is the "If" that will give 'Rationalizing Pirates' free reign for
them to use a pirated copy of OS X instead of buying their own.
If we think it won't happen, let us pause for a moment and look at the
OP's comments:
And let's not forget that OS X/Intel isn't yet a stand-alone product
being sold separately from the Developer's MacTel hardware system.
What this means is that the copy of OS 10.4.1 that was running on this
thread's PC Laptop is a 2nd install, which is undoubtedly nothing less
than illegal Piracy.
-hh
Jim Polaski
Flint <age...@section31.org> wrote:
In your ever so clear thinking on this subject, how do you think Apple's
going to make money, especially when they're a *hardware* company?
no one is making any money in the hardware biz other than Apple and Dell
and Apple will NEVER unseat Dell. The box Apple builds is better
hardware, thank goodness.
You haven't thought this out very well it seems.
--
Regards,
JP
"The measure of a man is what he will do while
expecting that he will get nothing in return!"
Lefty Bigfoot
(in article
<1126877471.4...@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>):
> Lefty Bigfoot wrote:
>>
>> Guess what. Software has higher margins typically than computer
>> hardware.
>
> Guess what: software can be pirated and infinitely duplicated, whereas
> hardware cannot.
Yes.
> Financially, what good does it to Apple if 500 million PC's in China
> are running one legal copy of OS X? Absolutely zippo.
You seem to be ignoring the very widely discussed possibility
that MS is happy (unofficially) with pirated copies, as long as
they sell enough legit ones, as it helps drive the demand for
Windows and applications for it, as being on 97% of desktops,
even if a large percentage are stolen, is better than having 3%
of the market and having them all be legit. The are the de
facto standard, largely because they waited for years, even
decades before putting any sort of reasonable copy protection
process in place, so that it would be a 'must have' instead of a
'may have' for almost everybody on the planet. Numerous smart
folks have postulated over the years that it was a deliberate
move to seed copies in places they would not be otherwise.
Proprietary is dead. Linux, even if not the perfect product for
everyone, has settled that. Get over it. Move along. Now the
game is not putting so many restrictions into the OS that make
hollywood happy and every one else angry go to an open, free
product instead. If Apple tries to follow Microsoft into that
abyss, they'll both suffer for it.
>> Bull. I'd buy three copies of it tomorrow afternoon. If they
>> didn't try to rape and pillage on pricing...
>
> Gosh, there's the "If".
Yeah. Only a moron writes blank checks. If Apple sold the
OSX86 for twice the price of Vista, I doubt there would be much
of a take rate. Duh.
> This is the "If" that will give 'Rationalizing Pirates' free reign for
> them to use a pirated copy of OS X instead of buying their own.
No, it isn't.
> If we think it won't happen, let us pause for a moment and look at the
> OP's comments:
>
> And let's not forget that OS X/Intel isn't yet a stand-alone product
> being sold separately from the Developer's MacTel hardware system.
I think everybody knows that, with or without the comments,
which you didn't attribute properly (> >).
> What this means is that the copy of OS 10.4.1 that was running on this
> thread's PC Laptop is a 2nd install, which is undoubtedly nothing less
> than illegal Piracy.
I'm sure that's the case, since the development hardware from
Apple isn't a notebook. That's beside the point of whether or
not Apple should take advantage of the obvious pent-up demand
for OS X on PC boxes while they can. Even if half of the copies
were stolen, the other half is still revenue that they will
never make up any other way.
Sandman
Lefty Bigfoot <nu...@busyness.info> wrote:
> > Financially, what good does it to Apple if 500 million PC's in China
> > are running one legal copy of OS X? Absolutely zippo.
>
> You seem to be ignoring the very widely discussed possibility
> that MS is happy (unofficially) with pirated copies, as long as
> they sell enough legit ones, as it helps drive the demand for
> Windows and applications for it, as being on 97% of desktops,
> even if a large percentage are stolen, is better than having 3%
> of the market and having them all be legit. The are the de
> facto standard, largely because they waited for years, even
> decades before putting any sort of reasonable copy protection
> process in place, so that it would be a 'must have' instead of a
> 'may have' for almost everybody on the planet. Numerous smart
> folks have postulated over the years that it was a deliberate
> move to seed copies in places they would not be otherwise.
This doesn't sound very likely. For instance, every WIndows version since 95
has required a serial number to install.
The above paragraph is more fitting for Mac OS which is a lot easier to pirate.
Mac OS doesn't require a serial to install. One of the differences is of course
that if people have a Mac, Apple has already cashed in on that person and one
pirate version of MacOS less or more doesn't really matter. Having a PC doesn't
give MS any money directly. You have to actually buy a copy of Windows for MS
to make money.
> Proprietary is dead. Linux, even if not the perfect product for
> everyone, has settled that. Get over it. Move along. Now the
> game is not putting so many restrictions into the OS that make
> hollywood happy and every one else angry go to an open, free
> product instead. If Apple tries to follow Microsoft into that
> abyss, they'll both suffer for it.
I've toyed with the idea that have been discussed here lately that Apple should
drop (or license) their hardware line and give away MacOS for free (for a
limited time).
It just could work. Apple still could build Pro machines with special Final Cut
hardware and internal RAID or whatever to cater to the pros, plus they could
keep up with the xServe line but let anyone make iBook and iMacs, i.e. license
the design and r&d from Apple to put cool computers on the market.
Apple could even still sell these on the apple store and have their apple logo
on them, but let HP build them or whoever. You could even get a Compaq "Built
for Mac OS X" computer scheme running where Apple had some standards for the
looks and quality of the hardware, but the internals were up to Compaq as long
as it was supported by Mac OS.
And when MacOS has been totally free for anyone with a x86 computer for maybe
two years start charging $89 for it and cut of the WIndows version of iTunes so
that anyone that want to use the iTMS needs to boot into MacOS... I don't know
if that's very good, it's just an idea I got.
--
Sandman[.net]
Donald McDaniel
> In article <1126833735.7...@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
> imout...@mac.com wrote:
>
>> George Graves wrote:
>>> In article <11ik17g...@news.supernews.com>,
>>> John <nos...@nospam.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Showed up at a meeting today and noticed one of the attendees was
>>>> RUNNING OS X on a Intel laptop today. Played with it a few minutes and
>>>> it seemed to work great. Apple should just go ahead and sell OS X to
>>>> everybody and wipe out Windows.
>>> But it wouldn't wipe out Windows.
>> It could a big dent in it.
>>
>>> It would marginalize OSX
>> How so? We haven't seen the Intel Apple product yet, but today's x86
>> hardware shares a lot with Mac PPC hardware, eg Dell and gateway buy
>> portables from the same Chinese factory that Apple uses.
>>
>> What, exactly, is so special about the Apple logo on an x86 box that
>> will prevent the company from becoming marginalized?
>
> Because if OSX ran on any Intel box, there would be no reason to buy a
> Mac, and Apple would be out of the hardware industry. A no hardware
> Apple would be gone very soon, just like a no-hardware NeXT and for the
> same reasons.
The fact is, OSX WILL be running on an Intel box, and VERY SOON (within
the next year or so). Get used to it.
>> IOW, what's the Apple secret sauce that's going to make an Apple x86
>> box different from an eg. Dell box?
The only difference between an "Intel box" and and a soon-to-be MACtel
box will be a small chip on the motherboard (if Apple goes that way).
This chip will authenticate to OSX that the machine it is booting on is
a genuinely Apple-produced (really Taiwan-produced) machine. I wonder
how long it will be before this chip is backward-engineered and produced
in mass quantities. Knowing the Chinese, it won't be long. Then where
will Apple be? Is Steve Jobs going to sue the whole world for patent
infringement?
>>> and Apple would go the way of NeXT. Not a great idea.
The world just wasn't ready for the either Lisa or the NeXT cube. Time
and chance just weren't on Apple's side.
>> I don't see the basis for that opinion.
Neither do I, and I'm sure, neither do millions of Windows users. Being
a recent convert from Windows to the world of Apple (my brother gave me
his old PowerMAC G5 when he bought a new one), I fell in love with the
Apple-engineered machine immediately. I guarantee you, as an ex-Windows
fan, Apple-produced machines will sell themselves, since the basic
hardware design is superior to run-of-the-mill IBM-PCs. My G5 is
quieter, cooler, and looks MUCH cooler than my old PC. In addition,
it's much easier to work with it, too.
In addition, I can leave the machine on 24/7. I couldn't do that with
my PC /w XP Pro (which is now slated for either a test-bed for Vista
when it comes out, or getting a few hundred extra bucks in my brother's
pocket. It was STILL constantly, and I guarantee you, I maintained it
like a well-oiled machine, and kept it CLEAN and virus-free)
>>
>> The PC market is 200 million sales per year.
>>
>> Apple's got ~2.5% of that market right now, but makes most of its money
>> from software and iPod sales, and its big-ticket G5 sales are tanking.
>>
>> 5% market penetration, 10M OS sales per year, at $100 per would be
>> $1B/yr in pure profit.
>>
>> So getting back to its 15% highwater mark last seen in 1993 would be
>> $3B/yr in pure profit.
>>
>> And note that the more OS licenses it sells the more Apple-brand
>> software it will sell too.
Absolutely, since our old Windows software will be totally useless
unless we were to dual-boot with Windows. As an example, the BEST
Usenet client in the world is only produced for Windows (Forte Inc's
Agent offline newsreader). I would LOVE to be able to bring this
product over to my G5 (there just is not a decent OSX Usenet client),
but such is not possible -- UNLESS Apple had a MUCH LARGER user-base, in
which case, Forte would HAVE to release an OSX port, to generate greater
revenue.
>>
>> Looking at financials, Apple's making 30% gross margin on an average
>> $1500 hardware sale, or $300 per machine.
>
> Where do you get that 30% figure? I was under the impression that
> Apple's gross margins were about half that.
>
>
>> For Apple to break-even on OS licensing, it needs to sell 3 licenses
>> for every lost hardware sale.
>
> And they wouldn't sell that many.
You really have no way of making a statement like that, since you do not
know the current mind-set of Windows folks. Windows users are
extremely unhappy with Windows and Microsoft at present, and more and
more of them are abandoning the traditional Windows OS and software for
other solutions (especially among corporations -- the life-blood of ANY
platform.) Right now, you only find Apples on the MARGIN of society --
among artists, colleges and universities, and scientific folk, and the
so-called "upper-crust" of society. But you don't find it among the
middle-class and corporations, who are the bread-and-butter of the PC
world.
Apple has NOT penetrated the top of the iceberg-the corporations. This
is simply because the machine is just too expensive for corporate
mass-purchases. However, compared to Windows, OSX itself is so much
cheaper, and more robust. The price ALONE will sell it to the corps.
Corporate IT executives would buy it in MASS-QUANTITIES, if they could
install it on their PCs. Many of them use Apple machines on their home
computers, and really love them. But their bosses just won't spring for
the huge increase in cash-outlays for the hardware which switching over
to MACs would require.
Anyway, I hope I have given you something to chew on for awhile.
==
Donald L McDaniel
Please reply to the original thread,
so that it may remain intact.
===========================================================================
George Graves
imout...@mac.com wrote:
> George Graves wrote:
> > In article <1126833735.7...@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
> > imout...@mac.com wrote:
> >
> > > What, exactly, is so special about the Apple logo on an x86 box that
> > > will prevent the company from becoming marginalized?
> >
> > Because if OSX ran on any Intel box, there would be no reason to buy a
> > Mac, and Apple would be out of the hardware industry.
>
> Isn't it already? What's the big deal about slapping an Apple logo on
> an x86 box?
No, it isn't "already". And the "big deal" is that an X86 Mac is not
about "just slapping an Apple Logo on an X86 box" It's about slapping an
X86 processor inside of a Mac, and if you don't see or understand the
difference, then you probably shouldn't be trying to discuss something
that you don't "get".
>
> Is it just the the average $500 of gross margin selling the box gives
> Apple?
>
> Apple gets much better gross margins selling software.
>
> > A no hardware
> > Apple would be gone very soon, just like a no-hardware NeXT and for the
> > same reasons.
>
> I disagree. NeXT was caught between the dual hammers of Macintosh at
> its competitive peak and the Windows 3.x/95 boom. Not to mention SGI,
> which was feeling its oats in the early 1990s.
NeXT ported its OS to Intel and stopped building boxes. Crickets
chirped, potential users yawned, and the masses bought Windblows. Apple
is a HARDWARE company. The last time they even tried to share the
hardware market by allowing clones, it almost killed them off. Now you
are advocating that Apple let just any cheap Intel box run OSX? That
would be even worse for Apple than the cloning venture
> As of now, the Apple of old is dead. SGI is circling the bowl, and
> Windows is dominant as it has ever been, yet Vista is a pretty big
> gamble for the company.
Once again, you show your lack of understanding. The "Apple of old" is
not dead, it's still the same innovative company that it has always
been. Some innovations work for them (iPods) and some don't (you are
aware that Apple produced the FIRST consumer digital camera, are you
not?). Apple has always been about one thing: The tight integration
between hardware and software. It's still about that.
>
> x86 is the settled standard. Person buying an x86 box has two choices:
> Linux or Windows. Apple could and should IMV join this game, instead of
> trying to maintain a Mac-label boutique ghetto in x86 land.
You are wrong. This would be the worse thing that could happen. OSX
would just be another OS choice, like Linux and NeXT before it. People
would no longer differentiate between Macs and PCs and most would just
stick with the Windows OS that came with their box. It would cut Apple
off from it's main revenue stream. Without the cash for R&D, Apple would
no longer be innovative as it now and eventually be marginalized out of
business.
> Well, they can still sell Apple-labelled PCs, but wouldn't it be cool
> if the Apple Store sold Sony and HP machines that ran OS X?
No it would not.
> > > Looking at financials, Apple's making 30% gross margin on an average
> > > $1500 hardware sale, or $300 per machine.
> >
> > Where do you get that 30% figure? I was under the impression that
> > Apple's gross margins were about half that.
>
> No, Dell's are 18-20%. For 3Q05 Apple posted a 29.6% gross margin. This
> includes 1/3 of sales that were iPods, and those come in at 22%
> apparently, software is only 10% of sales so doesn't have much an
> effect on gross margin.
That's right, software doesn't have much of an effect on gross margins
because Apple is a HARDWARE company. You just answered your own question.
>
> > > For Apple to break-even on OS licensing, it needs to sell 3 licenses
> > > for every lost hardware sale.
> >
> > And they wouldn't sell that many.
>
> Dunno. With $7B in the bank they don't have to worry about cashflow for
> a while.
>
> Getting sales churn on a 200M unit market looks more profitable than
> servicing a 20M market.
It would not be.
>
> Now that Apple's ditching their own design work
Where do you get that from? You seem to be convinced that all an
Intel-based Mac would be is an Acer motherboard stuck in a Mac case.
This is incorrect.
> I feel no strong need
> to buy a Mac anymore. "Intel Inside" is "Intel Inside" is "Intel
> Inside" as far as I am concerned, and I think I can do a better job of
> putting together an x86 box than Apple can.
And that thinking is why you don't "get it" at all. But don't come
running back here and complaining about how poorly OSX runs on your home
brew Winbox. You have been told that an Intel based Mac is NOT a Windows
machine and that you choose to ignore that admonition and run a hacked
version of the OS on some cobbled together PC is your problem, not
Apple's, not OSX' and not the Mac supporter's on this forum.
George Graves
Tom Elam <tom_...@earthlink.net> wrote:
How the hell would you know Elam? You've never even run OSX. I suspect
strongly that you've never even seen it. Because if you had, you
wouldn't be saying that it sucks. You'd be in awe of how good it
actually is compared to that dinosaur, that remnant of the '70's and
'80's, called Windows.
Lefty Bigfoot
(in article <mr-F3622B.18...@individual.net>):
>> You seem to be ignoring the very widely discussed possibility
>> that MS is happy (unofficially) with pirated copies, as long as
>> they sell enough legit ones, as it helps drive the demand for
>> Windows and applications for it, as being on 97% of desktops,
>> even if a large percentage are stolen, is better than having 3%
>> of the market and having them all be legit. The are the de
>> facto standard, largely because they waited for years, even
>> decades before putting any sort of reasonable copy protection
>> process in place, so that it would be a 'must have' instead of a
>> 'may have' for almost everybody on the planet. Numerous smart
>> folks have postulated over the years that it was a deliberate
>> move to seed copies in places they would not be otherwise.
>
> This doesn't sound very likely.
Then you aren't listening closely. :-)
> For instance, every WIndows version since 95 has required a serial
> number to install.
Exactly, but you are missing the point. That 'serial number'
has been trivial to work around. Just as others have stated in
print recently, Microsoft /pretended/ to have copy protection so
they could frown upon it, yet made it extremely easy to defeat,
so they could have their cake and eat it too. "See, look, we're
trying to stop these evil hackers". Right. Do you honestly
believe that Microsoft was incapable for all those years of
coming up with a system that wouldn't allow it to be pirated?
Puhleeze.
Here's a trivial example of what a joke that system is. If you
buy a Dell, ANY Dell, then any Dell "reinstall CD", for any
version of Windows shipping in the last 8 years or so will
install on it, /without/ a license key. It looks for the Dell
signature string in BIOS, and if it's there, it does the install
and installs a 'pseudo-key' and doesn't ask for the one stuck on
the chassis. Do you really think Microsoft is serious about
security, when you can take a Dell purchased years ago with
Win/95 on it, or one today with Windows Home on it, boot from a
Dell XP Pro reinstall CD and install it just fine? Spare me.
> The above paragraph is more fitting for Mac OS which is a lot easier to
> pirate.
The lack of compatible hardware outside of Apple makes it just a
bit different.
> Mac OS doesn't require a serial to install. One of the differences is of
> course
> that if people have a Mac, Apple has already cashed in on that person and one
> pirate version of MacOS less or more doesn't really matter.
Right. And having somebody with a pirated copy of Mac OS X on a
PC from Toshiba, telling all their friends how great it is, and
how easy it is to use and keep secure instead of Windows would
be bad for business. *cough*
> Having a PC doesn't give MS any money directly. You have to actually buy
> a copy of Windows for MS to make money.
You really do not understand the concept of market dominance.
Of course, being in a mac newsgroup, that makes perfect sense
that you don't. :-)
>> Proprietary is dead. Linux, even if not the perfect product for
>> everyone, has settled that. Get over it. Move along. Now the
>> game is not putting so many restrictions into the OS that make
>> hollywood happy and every one else angry go to an open, free
>> product instead. If Apple tries to follow Microsoft into that
>> abyss, they'll both suffer for it.
>
> I've toyed with the idea that have been discussed here lately that Apple
> should
> drop (or license) their hardware line and give away MacOS for free (for a
> limited time).
>
> It just could work. Apple still could build Pro machines with special Final
> Cut
> hardware and internal RAID or whatever to cater to the pros, plus they could
> keep up with the xServe line but let anyone make iBook and iMacs, i.e.
> license
> the design and r&d from Apple to put cool computers on the market.
Exactly. Some people pay exorbitant prices to Alienware for
commodity Fry's hardware with a fancy plastic shell wrapped
around it. You can argue that it's an ugly shell, but still.
George Graves
Lefty Bigfoot <nu...@busyness.info> wrote:
And your major seems to have been Advanced Obfuscation through
generalization. Yes, Apple could go a long time without selling a
computer, but there needs to be light at the end of the tunnel on that
scenario. Otherwise, they might as well just divvy the money up amongst
themselves and say good night. And BTW, OSX is $129, NOT $189.
> Apple could even GIVE AWAY OSx86 for 12 months, while selling
> iPods, whatever dwindling PPC hardware sales they still have and
> iTunes song downloads, and seed the market with a zillion copies
> of a far better OS than Windows. Or, to protect the notion that
> it isn't free, they could sell it for $15, and watch Microsoft
> go insane between now and the Vista launch. Now is /the/ time
> to do it, before Microsoft sucks another $200 out of every
> person on the planet with a PC.
Get this through your skull: Apple is a hardware company that has a
great OS to go with it; great, at least partially, due to the tight
integration with the hardware. No hardware, no Apple.
George Graves
Lefty Bigfoot <nu...@busyness.info> wrote:
OSX is CHEAPER than Windows. A new copy of Windows (not an upgrade) is
$189. A new copy of MacOS is $129.
> > This is the "If" that will give 'Rationalizing Pirates' free reign for
> > them to use a pirated copy of OS X instead of buying their own.
>
> No, it isn't.
>
> > If we think it won't happen, let us pause for a moment and look at the
> > OP's comments:
> >
> > And let's not forget that OS X/Intel isn't yet a stand-alone product
> > being sold separately from the Developer's MacTel hardware system.
>
> I think everybody knows that, with or without the comments,
> which you didn't attribute properly (> >).
>
> > What this means is that the copy of OS 10.4.1 that was running on this
> > thread's PC Laptop is a 2nd install, which is undoubtedly nothing less
> > than illegal Piracy.
>
> I'm sure that's the case, since the development hardware from
> Apple isn't a notebook. That's beside the point of whether or
> not Apple should take advantage of the obvious pent-up demand
> for OS X on PC boxes while they can.
I doubt seriously that this "pent-up demand" you speak of even exists.
Lefty Bigfoot
(in article <11iltbf...@corp.supernews.com>):
>> Because if OSX ran on any Intel box, there would be no reason to buy a
>> Mac, and Apple would be out of the hardware industry. A no hardware
>> Apple would be gone very soon, just like a no-hardware NeXT and for the
>> same reasons.
>
> The fact is, OSX WILL be running on an Intel box, and VERY SOON (within
> the next year or so). Get used to it.
More importantly, it's no different for them at that point than
Dell. What's the secret sauce that makes people buy Dell
instead of HP? It's called a competitive market. Apple needs
to get used to the idea that they have competitors, and start
making sure that their hardware is worth buying over the
competition, for a reason other than operating system.
For years, Mac fans have said the Apple hardware is better than
PC hardware. If that's really true, and not just hand-waving,
then Apple will /still/ sell hardware in the x86 market. If
it's total bullshit, then it doesn't matter, because they'll be
out of the hardware business anyway, with or without OS X. OS X
isn't that much of a magic bullet. If it is, then giving it
away to steal market penetration from Microsoft in the x86 space
is a really good idea. Besides, they can afford it.
> The only difference between an "Intel box" and and a soon-to-be MACtel
> box will be a small chip on the motherboard (if Apple goes that way).
Don't forget the shiny cases. :-)
> This chip will authenticate to OSX that the machine it is booting on is
> a genuinely Apple-produced (really Taiwan-produced) machine. I wonder
> how long it will be before this chip is backward-engineered and produced
> in mass quantities. Knowing the Chinese, it won't be long. Then where
> will Apple be? Is Steve Jobs going to sue the whole world for patent
> infringement?
Some have already suggested that Apple should /pretend/ to make
it secure, yet choose something week intentionally (as MS likely
did) so that they can publicly decry softare piracy, while
watching their product spread at the same time.
> Being
> a recent convert from Windows to the world of Apple (my brother gave me
> his old PowerMAC G5 when he bought a new one), I fell in love with the
> Apple-engineered machine immediately. I guarantee you, as an ex-Windows
> fan, Apple-produced machines will sell themselves, since the basic
> hardware design is superior to run-of-the-mill IBM-PCs. My G5 is
> quieter, cooler, and looks MUCH cooler than my old PC. In addition,
> it's much easier to work with it, too.
Yes, but try cracking open one of the other models sometime.
> You really have no way of making a statement like that, since you do not
> know the current mind-set of Windows folks. Windows users are
> extremely unhappy with Windows and Microsoft at present, and more and
> more of them are abandoning the traditional Windows OS and software for
> other solutions (especially among corporations -- the life-blood of ANY
> platform.)
Of course, now is the perfect time to strike, it doesn't get any
better. You have a ticked off, huge group of consumers, that
would gladly jump ship if they had a reasonable alternative that
didn't require going to geek school. Plenty of the more
technical ones have already left the fold, and MS is definitely
feeling it, and if Apple doesn't do something soon to put their
products into the running, they won't have a chance later. If
Linux ever does take off to the general public, they're toast
apart from iPods and music sales.
Lefty Bigfoot
(in article
>> Now that Apple's ditching their own design work
>
> Where do you get that from? You seem to be convinced that all an
> Intel-based Mac would be is an Acer motherboard stuck in a Mac case.
> This is incorrect.
Right. It's an intel reference platform board with a few extra
ports added to glue on proprietary toys. Woodah.
>> I feel no strong need
>> to buy a Mac anymore. "Intel Inside" is "Intel Inside" is "Intel
>> Inside" as far as I am concerned, and I think I can do a better job of
>> putting together an x86 box than Apple can.
>
> And that thinking is why you don't "get it" at all.
No, he does get it. The hardware is not magic anymore. The OS
is where all the importance is. OS X on anything (if its
stable) is the important distinction versus Windws, not the logo
etched on the board. This is a software issue, not harrdware.
The only real issue that is an exception in all this is hardware
driver support. It will take a long while for peripheral
vendors to support OS X, even if Apple shipped a free copy of
OSx86 to every household in north america tomorrow afternoon.
However, if they published a list of what /is/ supported, or did
a hardware scan at boot prior to partitioning the drive to let
you know ahead of time of potential problems, they'd be 20 years
ahead of Microsoft.
Lefty Bigfoot
(in article
>>>> Bull. I'd buy three copies of it tomorrow afternoon. If they
>>>> didn't try to rape and pillage on pricing...
>>>
>>> Gosh, there's the "If".
>>
>> Yeah. Only a moron writes blank checks. If Apple sold the
>> OSX86 for twice the price of Vista, I doubt there would be much
>> of a take rate. Duh.
>
> OSX is CHEAPER than Windows. A new copy of Windows (not an upgrade) is
> $189. A new copy of MacOS is $129.
That's very interesting George, but it doesn't refute anything
stated above. I said I would buy it tomorrow at normal prices.
What I did not say was I would buy it any price they might
imagine for the X86 version.
>>> What this means is that the copy of OS 10.4.1 that was running on this
>>> thread's PC Laptop is a 2nd install, which is undoubtedly nothing less
>>> than illegal Piracy.
>>
>> I'm sure that's the case, since the development hardware from
>> Apple isn't a notebook. That's beside the point of whether or
>> not Apple should take advantage of the obvious pent-up demand
>> for OS X on PC boxes while they can.
>
> I doubt seriously that this "pent-up demand" you speak of even exists.
Explain the bittorrent sites with all the bootleg copies, or
explain the reference in the subject line of this thread. Apple
is playing a psychological game with the public, where anytime
people are told 'you can't have one', they want one.
It's a white-washed fence, figuratively speaking.
Lefty Bigfoot
(in article
>> Bull. I'd buy three copies of it tomorrow afternoon. If they
>> didn't try to rape and pillage on pricing, for example if they
>> discounted it to get it out there for a while, say $89 instead
>> of $189, even better. One week, the mac apologists tell us that
>> Apple can go for years without selling a computer because their
>> financial position is so good, then the next week the same folks
>> tell us that Apple will go under if they allow OS X to be sold
>> on alternative hardware. You can't have it both ways, unless
>> your major in college was Advanced Hypocrisy.
>
> And your major seems to have been Advanced Obfuscation through
> generalization.
You need a dictionary. I didn't obfuscate anything, some Apple
fans have been talking out of both sides of their mouths, just
as I described above, for years.
> Yes, Apple could go a long time without selling a
> computer, but there needs to be light at the end of the tunnel on that
> scenario.
Exactly. Perhaps you have heard of "grand opening sales"
before? This is really no different.
> Otherwise, they might as well just divvy the money up amongst
> themselves and say good night.
You fail to recognize the huge difference in COGS between a box
and a pressed DVD. The development expense doesn't change much.
In fact, there is an opportunity for them to make even more
incremental revenue by selling more ADC subscriptions, selling
more development hardware, licensing "Certified for OS X"
peripheral hardware, etc. This is a potential cash cow for
them, not the end of the world. Even IBM has figured this out,
they make a /ton/ of money from software now, and have all but
left the hardware PC market that they created.
> And BTW, OSX is $129, NOT $189.
I was referring to the competition.
> Get this through your skull: Apple is a hardware company that has a
> great OS to go with it; great, at least partially, due to the tight
> integration with the hardware. No hardware, no Apple.
I disagree. Nobody that is taken seriously today claims that
Apple is a hardware company. Yes, having a restricted hardware
compatibility list helps them somewhat, but having a market 5
times larger, with the associated benefits would help them even
more. If their idea was so wonderful, they'd be orders of
magnitude larger than Microsoft, instead of the other way
around.
Sandman
Lefty Bigfoot <nu...@busyness.info> wrote:
> <long rant snipped> Spare me.
I will. Your attitude (and rant) doesn't really provide a productive discussion
material.
> <snip rest, which I didn't even read>
--
Sandman[.net]
George Graves
Lefty Bigfoot <nu...@busyness.info> wrote:
> George Graves wrote
> (in article
> <gmgraves-28D9DB...@newsclstr02.news.prodigy.com>):
>
> >> Bull. I'd buy three copies of it tomorrow afternoon. If they
> >> didn't try to rape and pillage on pricing, for example if they
> >> discounted it to get it out there for a while, say $89 instead
> >> of $189, even better. One week, the mac apologists tell us that
> >> Apple can go for years without selling a computer because their
> >> financial position is so good, then the next week the same folks
> >> tell us that Apple will go under if they allow OS X to be sold
> >> on alternative hardware. You can't have it both ways, unless
> >> your major in college was Advanced Hypocrisy.
> >
> > And your major seems to have been Advanced Obfuscation through
> > generalization.
>
> You need a dictionary.
I need nothing.
> I didn't obfuscate anything, some Apple
> fans have been talking out of both sides of their mouths, just
> as I described above, for years.
You are being much too literal. Yeah, Apple has relatively deep pockets.
But companies aren't in business to live off the fat of the land. They
are in business to show their shareholders a profit every quarter. If
they don't heads roll at the top. So the fact that they COULD go a long
time without selling anything and the idea that they SHOULD are two
entirely different things. So, nobody's talking out of both sides of
their mouth.
> > Yes, Apple could go a long time without selling a
> > computer, but there needs to be light at the end of the tunnel on that
> > scenario.
>
> Exactly. Perhaps you have heard of "grand opening sales"
> before? This is really no different.
Except that it is. It would be a blunder of the first water.
>
> > Otherwise, they might as well just divvy the money up amongst
> > themselves and say good night.
>
> You fail to recognize the huge difference in COGS between a box
> and a pressed DVD. The development expense doesn't change much.
> In fact, there is an opportunity for them to make even more
> incremental revenue by selling more ADC subscriptions, selling
> more development hardware, licensing "Certified for OS X"
> peripheral hardware, etc. This is a potential cash cow for
> them, not the end of the world. Even IBM has figured this out,
> they make a /ton/ of money from software now, and have all but
> left the hardware PC market that they created.
Not the same thing. You seem not to understand that the Mac is as good
as it is more than partly due to the tight integration between hardware
and OS. Now you're advocating giving that up. If they do, much of what
makes the Mac superior to Windows will evaporate. It's called a
strategic blunder. The last time Apple did something like that, they
almost lost their shirt.
>
> > And BTW, OSX is $129, NOT $189.
>
> I was referring to the competition.
>
> > Get this through your skull: Apple is a hardware company that has a
> > great OS to go with it; great, at least partially, due to the tight
> > integration with the hardware. No hardware, no Apple.
>
> I disagree.
Disagree all you like. You're wrong. And after you disagree some more,
you'll still be wrong.
> Nobody that is taken seriously today claims that
> Apple is a hardware company.
Apple is a hardware company, your somewhat colorful view notwithstanding.
> Yes, having a restricted hardware
> compatibility list helps them somewhat, but having a market 5
> times larger, with the associated benefits would help them even
> more. If their idea was so wonderful, they'd be orders of
> magnitude larger than Microsoft, instead of the other way
> around.
That's an assumption. Having a market five times larger but without the
traditional advantages of a Mac is a dubious trade-off, and I think Jobs
is smart enough to realize that, even if you disagree.
-hh
> You seem to be ignoring the very widely discussed possibility
> helps drive the demand for Windows and applications for it...
Which in essence is saying that your paradigm is that a business can
strategically have a 'loss leader' so long as it faciliates the sale of
the profitable product.
I don't disagree with this approach, since this is why Apple gives away
iTunes to sell iPods.
However, for someone who's already pirated one piece of software (OS),
what's one more (Application)?
Similarly, what specifically is Apple's "killer high volume
Application" for which Apple would be willing forgo the $129 revenue
from the OS to be able to sell? Since iLife, sells for less than the
OS, it doesn't logically count.
IMO, Apple is being smart by giving away software to sell hardware.
> > This is the "If" that will give 'Rationalizing Pirates' free reign for
> > them to use a pirated copy of OS X instead of buying their own.
>
> No, it isn't.
On the recent Copyright thread, the concept of "immoral profits" was
precisely the underlying issue behind the perceived morality for the
pirating of music.
> Even if half of the copies were stolen, the other half is still
> revenue that they will never make up any other way.
The question is what percentage of sales is required to make up for the
illegally pirated copies, and to what degree the selling price dictates
people's incentives to steal instead of buy (and/or do without). For
example, Adobe probably is very happy to sell millions of "Upgrade"
copies of Photoshop to people who really aren't eligible, because they
are being drawn in via this process, whereas they would never buy at
the $500 price point.
-hh
George Graves
Lefty Bigfoot <nu...@busyness.info> wrote:
> George Graves wrote
> (in article
> <gmgraves-88F15D...@newsclstr02.news.prodigy.com>):
>
> >> Now that Apple's ditching their own design work
> >
> > Where do you get that from? You seem to be convinced that all an
> > Intel-based Mac would be is an Acer motherboard stuck in a Mac case.
> > This is incorrect.
>
> Right. It's an intel reference platform board with a few extra
> ports added to glue on proprietary toys. Woodah.
You are wrong. That's what the developer box is because it's expedient
to do it that way. But the release machines won't be like that.
BTW, what "proprietary toys" are you referring to? USB? FireWire?
Ethernet? Bluetooth? 802.11? None of these are proprietary. Apple
doesn't do proprietary any more.
> >> I feel no strong need
> >> to buy a Mac anymore. "Intel Inside" is "Intel Inside" is "Intel
> >> Inside" as far as I am concerned, and I think I can do a better job of
> >> putting together an x86 box than Apple can.
> >
> > And that thinking is why you don't "get it" at all.
>
> No, he does get it. The hardware is not magic anymore. The OS
> is where all the importance is. OS X on anything (if its
> stable) is the important distinction versus Windws, not the logo
> etched on the board. This is a software issue, not harrdware.
> The only real issue that is an exception in all this is hardware
> driver support. It will take a long while for peripheral
> vendors to support OS X, even if Apple shipped a free copy of
> OSx86 to every household in north america tomorrow afternoon.
> However, if they published a list of what /is/ supported, or did
> a hardware scan at boot prior to partitioning the drive to let
> you know ahead of time of potential problems, they'd be 20 years
> ahead of Microsoft.
You don't seem to get it either.
George Graves
Lefty Bigfoot <nu...@busyness.info> wrote:
Macs will maintain their present market share (give or take a point or
two) no matter what they do, unless they abandon hardware design and
manufacturing, and become just a "me too" alternative for Winboxes, then
they'll die. I personally think that this switch to Intel is ill advised
and will come back at some point and bite Apple in the ass. In my humble
opinion going to Intel is opening a Pandora's Box that is best left
closed. While, from an operational standpoint, it really doesn't matter
which processor is being used, the more like a Winbox a Mac becomes, the
more marginalized Apple becomes. I myself will likely continue buying
PPC Macs until I can get them no longer before switching to Intel. A
product is defined by differentiation with its competitors, not by
sleeping with them. If, suddenly, Macs and PCs are the same, then why
bother? Might as well run fucking Windows. This is the main reason why I
do not advocate and do not see Apple going this route (unless they have
a strong death wish).
Peter Hayes
> In article <1126833735.7...@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
> imout...@mac.com wrote:
>
> > George Graves wrote:
> > > In article <11ik17g...@news.supernews.com>,
> > > John <nos...@nospam.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > > Showed up at a meeting today and noticed one of the attendees was
> > > > RUNNING OS X on a Intel laptop today. Played with it a few minutes and
> > > > it seemed to work great. Apple should just go ahead and sell OS X to
> > > > everybody and wipe out Windows.
> > >
> > > But it wouldn't wipe out Windows.
> >
> > It could a big dent in it.
> >
> > > It would marginalize OSX
> >
> > How so? We haven't seen the Intel Apple product yet, but today's x86
> > hardware shares a lot with Mac PPC hardware, eg Dell and gateway buy
> > portables from the same Chinese factory that Apple uses.
> >
> > What, exactly, is so special about the Apple logo on an x86 box that
> > will prevent the company from becoming marginalized?
>
> Because if OSX ran on any Intel box, there would be no reason to buy a
> Mac, and Apple would be out of the hardware industry. A no hardware
> Apple would be gone very soon, just like a no-hardware NeXT and for the
> same reasons.
I thought Apple hardware was supposed to be as good as any x86 hardware.
So why can't Apple compete with quality x86 hardware manufacturers like
Sony?
--
Peter
imout...@mac.com
> In article <1126845618.2...@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>,
> imout...@mac.com wrote:
>
> > > Because if OSX ran on any Intel box, there would be no reason to buy a
> > > Mac, and Apple would be out of the hardware industry.
> >
> > Isn't it already? What's the big deal about slapping an Apple logo on
> > an x86 box?
>
> No, it isn't "already".
Apple has announced they're getting out of the hardware industry as a
proprietary maker, and becoming an Intel OEM.
> And the "big deal" is that an X86 Mac is not
> about "just slapping an Apple Logo on an X86 box" It's about slapping an
> X86 processor inside of a Mac
thing is, this involves a lot more than just the processor: the
chipset. Ever since the 2nd generation power macs Apple hardware has
been steadily been devolving -- first PCI, then USB, AGP, now the
chipset and CPU. What's left?
> and if you don't see or understand the
> difference, then you probably shouldn't be trying to discuss something
> that you don't "get".
What I don't get, and what you haven't provided any light on, is how an
Apple x86 box is going to be different than an eg. Dell x86 box.
Interestingly, Apple has recently let out of the bag that SSE3 will not
necessarily be available. Since SSE3 has been available on all Intel
CPUs since last year, it almost looks like Apple is leaving the door
open to a wider licensing approach.
> > > A no hardware
> > > Apple would be gone very soon, just like a no-hardware NeXT and for the
> > > same reasons.
> >
> > I disagree. NeXT was caught between the dual hammers of Macintosh at
> > its competitive peak and the Windows 3.x/95 boom. Not to mention SGI,
> > which was feeling its oats in the early 1990s.
>
> NeXT ported its OS to Intel and stopped building boxes. Crickets
> chirped, potential users yawned, and the masses bought Windblows.
Part of the response was due to the high licensing costs NeXT was
forced to pursue due to its shaky financial health.
> Apple is a HARDWARE company.
...soon no longer making their own proprietary hardware.
> The last time they even tried to share the
> hardware market by allowing clones, it almost killed them off.
The difference today is that they are not subsidizing the clones by
having to do all the R&D, or having to do all the hardware QA. That's
Intel's job, and *APPLE* itself has become the "cloner".
Apple really doesn't have all their eggs in the high-margin workstation
basket like they did in the mid-1990s. Thanks to the iMac, iPod,
aggressive software development, iTMS, the high-margin workstations are
an afterthought as far as profit to the company goes.
> Now you
> are advocating that Apple let just any cheap Intel box run OSX?
Pretty much any box capable of running Quake3 well, yes. So every
machine built this decade.
> That would be even worse for Apple than the cloning venture
Nah. Cloners were crimping the late, great Apple's style of hardware
innovation. Remember the GeoPort, the AV macs?
By going x86, Apple Computer Inc has essentially thrown in the towel on
PC hardware innovation, delegating it to Intel.
> > As of now, the Apple of old is dead. SGI is circling the bowl, and
> > Windows is dominant as it has ever been, yet Vista is a pretty big
> > gamble for the company.
>
> Once again, you show your lack of understanding. The "Apple of old" is
> not dead, it's still the same innovative company that it has always
> been.
Apple *Computer*, Inc. is dead. Steve just killed it. Welcome to
AppleSoft and iTunes.
> Some innovations work for them (iPods) and some don't (you are
> aware that Apple produced the FIRST consumer digital camera, are you
> not?).
Good point. Apple has had a talent making innovative/stylish
peripherals over the years (ImageWriter, LaserWriter, AppleTalk
networking, the QuickTake, the iPod).
> Apple has always been about one thing: The tight integration
> between hardware and software. It's still about that.
Well if Windows can run on their hardware, they're no longer in the
hardware game as far as I'm concerned.
> > x86 is the settled standard. Person buying an x86 box has two choices:
> > Linux or Windows. Apple could and should IMV join this game, instead of
> > trying to maintain a Mac-label boutique ghetto in x86 land.
>
> You are wrong. This would be the worse thing that could happen. OSX
> would just be another OS choice, like Linux and NeXT before it. People
> would no longer differentiate between Macs and PCs and most would just
> stick with the Windows OS that came with their box.
You still have failed to answer how an Apple x86 box will be different
than a Dell x86 box.
Both will run Windows, implying great commonality.
Once the Mac goes x86 OS X will be already "just another" OS choice.
The difference will be that Apple will be requiring OS X chooser to
choose Apple-brand x86 hardware too.
> It would cut Apple off from it's main revenue stream.
Apple could still offer Apple-brand x86 hardware, but if you fear
Apple-brand hardware can't survive in direct competition with licensed
OS X for generic x86, that says a lot about how "special" Apple-brand
hardware will be, doesn't it?
> Without the cash for R&D, Apple would no longer be innovative as it now and eventually be >marginalized out of business.
The main innovation on the PC hardware front we've seen out of
Cupertino since 1998 has been the size, color, and/or backlighting of
the Apple logo.
If Macs were actually across-the-board better than x86 PCs today you'd
have a point. We've got marginal things like better power management,
better boot UE, firewire target disk mode, auto-sensing ethernet ports,
cool integration with the display.
But it remains to be seen what of the above will survive once the x86
boxes come out.
As a user, you should know that the bigger the platform, the more
software will be written for it.
Selling the OS X DVD to everyone would provide an immense boost to the
OS X userbase, doubling or tripling it overnight.
I'd trade that for Apple-branded hardware. No prob.
> > > > Looking at financials, Apple's making 30% gross margin on an average
> > > > $1500 hardware sale, or $300 per machine.
> > >
> > > Where do you get that 30% figure? I was under the impression that
> > > Apple's gross margins were about half that.
> >
> > No, Dell's are 18-20%. For 3Q05 Apple posted a 29.6% gross margin. This
> > includes 1/3 of sales that were iPods, and those come in at 22%
> > apparently, software is only 10% of sales so doesn't have much an
> > effect on gross margin.
>
> That's right, software doesn't have much of an effect on gross margins
> because Apple is a HARDWARE company. You just answered your own question.
A hardware company with large fixed costs making hardware. One whole
building on the Apple Campus (AC6) was devoted to hardware engineering.
These days, this engineering work can be done by Ive himself, picking
out the Pantone color of the plastic and which wat to mount the LCD.
> > Getting sales churn on a 200M unit market looks more profitable than
> > servicing a 20M market.
>
> It would not be.
200M x 10% market penetration x $100 license = $2 billion dollars per
year.
Looks more to me.
I believe that Apple can get 10% penetration with OS X in open
competition with Windows and Linux since I think it's better than both.
You, for some reason, lack this estimation of OS X.
> > Now that Apple's ditching their own design work
>
> Where do you get that from? You seem to be convinced that all an
> Intel-based Mac would be is an Acer motherboard stuck in a Mac case.
> This is incorrect.
If it runs Windows, it's a generic motherboard.
> > I feel no strong need
> > to buy a Mac anymore. "Intel Inside" is "Intel Inside" is "Intel
> > Inside" as far as I am concerned, and I think I can do a better job of
> > putting together an x86 box than Apple can.
>
> And that thinking is why you don't "get it" at all. But don't come
> running back here and complaining about how poorly OSX runs on your home
> brew Winbox. You have been told that an Intel based Mac is NOT a Windows
> machine
:) But they are...
> and that you choose to ignore that admonition and run a hacked
> version of the OS on some cobbled together PC is your problem, not
> Apple's, not OSX' and not the Mac supporter's on this forum.
"Cobbled together"?
What is cobbled together about x86, George?
The components:
1) CPU (Intel)
2) Chipset (Intel)
3) Video card (ATI or NVIDIA)
4) SATA hard disk
5) ATAPI optical
That's not any more cobbled together than Macs.
The wildcard here is the BIOS, but this is booted out of early, and as
far as we know Apple machine will have a standard Intel BIOS (hopefully
EFI).
Snit
1126901198....@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com on 9/16/05 1:06 PM:
> George Graves wrote:
>> In article <1126845618.2...@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>,
>> imout...@mac.com wrote:
>>
>>>> Because if OSX ran on any Intel box, there would be no reason to buy a
>>>> Mac, and Apple would be out of the hardware industry.
>>>
>>> Isn't it already? What's the big deal about slapping an Apple logo on
>>> an x86 box?
>>
>> No, it isn't "already".
>
> Apple has announced they're getting out of the hardware industry as a
> proprietary maker, and becoming an Intel OEM.
Apple has announced they are moving to Intel, but where did you get the idea
that they are no longer going to be making proprietary hardware?
>
>> And the "big deal" is that an X86 Mac is not about "just slapping an Apple
>> Logo on an X86 box" It's about slapping an X86 processor inside of a Mac
>
> thing is, this involves a lot more than just the processor: the
> chipset. Ever since the 2nd generation power macs Apple hardware has
> been steadily been devolving -- first PCI, then USB, AGP, now the
> chipset and CPU. What's left?
All that matters: the experience. It is something many Windows folks do not
get - OS X could run on chocolate chips and it would not matter - as long as
the overall experience was still good (for my part, if Apple did that I
would prefer dark chocolate).
>
>> and if you don't see or understand the
>> difference, then you probably shouldn't be trying to discuss something
>> that you don't "get".
>
> What I don't get, and what you haven't provided any light on, is how an
> Apple x86 box is going to be different than an eg. Dell x86 box.
If nothing else (and that is unlikely), OS X. The fact that the OS will be
built by the some folks who build the machine will also help - it always has
in the past, anyway.
--
"If a million people believe a foolish thing, it is still a foolish thing."
- Anatole France
_________________________________________
Usenet Zone Free Binaries Usenet Server
More than 140,000 groups
Unlimited download
http://www.usenetzone.com to open account
George Graves
imout...@mac.com wrote:
<snip>
> You still have failed to answer how an Apple x86 box will be different
> than a Dell x86 box. Both will run Windows, implying great commonality.
How do you know that the final, released Intel Macs will run Windows
without some kind of "runtime" software, likely provided by MS as VPC
software?
I'll tell you how the Intel Macs are likely to be different from a Dell
X86 box. The Mac will not boot into the DOS-like BIOS screen, and in
fact, there won't be a BIOS screen. Macs will only have USB, Firewire,
Ether, and audio I/O ports. They will not have serial, Centronics
parallel, or PS/2 ports. Macs will not have floppy drives, and they
won't have cases with drive sleds on them. You won't be able to press a
button on the optical drive to open the drawer or eject the disc. The
Intel Macs will look like Macs, and work like Macs and you'll have to
look to see which processor its using. Intel Macs will also cost more
than a Winbox, and will probably be as much more expensive than a Winbox
as they are now.
> Once the Mac goes x86 OS X will be already "just another" OS choice.
> The difference will be that Apple will be requiring OS X chooser to
> choose Apple-brand x86 hardware too.
>
> > It would cut Apple off from it's main revenue stream.
>
> Apple could still offer Apple-brand x86 hardware, but if you fear
> Apple-brand hardware can't survive in direct competition with licensed
> OS X for generic x86, that says a lot about how "special" Apple-brand
> hardware will be, doesn't it?
Most people don't buy quality unless they're forced to. Today, when they
buy a Mac, they are getting a quality product because if they want a
Mac, they have to buy Apple. If OSX ran on any old Intel junk (which I
suspect that it won't, at least not initially) then people will buy the
cheapest Winboxes that they can find and run OSX on it. Its not a
question of Apple's boxes not being able to compete, it will be a
question of QUALITY not being able to compete with junk - on price alone.
> > Without the cash for R&D, Apple would no longer be innovative as it now and
> > eventually be >marginalized out of business.
>
> The main innovation on the PC hardware front we've seen out of
> Cupertino since 1998 has been the size, color, and/or backlighting of
> the Apple logo.
That's your opinion.
> If Macs were actually across-the-board better than x86 PCs today you'd
> have a point. We've got marginal things like better power management,
> better boot UE, firewire target disk mode, auto-sensing ethernet ports,
> cool integration with the display.
All of which are part and parcel of the Mac experience, and all of which
will still be there with Intel Macs.
> But it remains to be seen what of the above will survive once the x86
> boxes come out.
All of it. It's part of what a Mac is all about.
>
> As a user, you should know that the bigger the platform, the more
> software will be written for it.
I have all the software I need, thank you. I don't need (or even
necessarily want) Apple to be a "bigger" platform. I don't like change,
and this entire move to Intel, to me, bodes ill.
> Selling the OS X DVD to everyone would provide an immense boost to the
> OS X userbase, doubling or tripling it overnight.
>
> I'd trade that for Apple-branded hardware. No prob.
I wouldn't.
> > > > > Looking at financials, Apple's making 30% gross margin on an average
> > > > > $1500 hardware sale, or $300 per machine.
> > > >
> > > > Where do you get that 30% figure? I was under the impression that
> > > > Apple's gross margins were about half that.
> > >
> > > No, Dell's are 18-20%. For 3Q05 Apple posted a 29.6% gross margin. This
> > > includes 1/3 of sales that were iPods, and those come in at 22%
> > > apparently, software is only 10% of sales so doesn't have much an
> > > effect on gross margin.
> >
> > That's right, software doesn't have much of an effect on gross margins
> > because Apple is a HARDWARE company. You just answered your own question.
>
> A hardware company with large fixed costs making hardware. One whole
> building on the Apple Campus (AC6) was devoted to hardware engineering.
> These days, this engineering work can be done by Ive himself, picking
> out the Pantone color of the plastic and which wat to mount the LCD.
>
> > > Getting sales churn on a 200M unit market looks more profitable than
> > > servicing a 20M market.
> >
> > It would not be.
>
> 200M x 10% market penetration x $100 license = $2 billion dollars per
> year.
>
> Looks more to me.
>
> I believe that Apple can get 10% penetration with OS X in open
> competition with Windows and Linux since I think it's better than both.
> You, for some reason, lack this estimation of OS X.
Apple will never grow its market share appreciably, and making the OS
available to any old junk Intel box will only tarnish its reputation
while not growing its market penetration one whit. What you seem
overlook is that most people don't care about the difference between Mac
and Windows. To them its all the same. Those people who find the Mac a
better computer, find their way to it and buy one. Those who don't stick
with Windows and might even delude themselves (as have so many who troll
here - are you paying attention Elam?) into thinking that Windows is the
better of the two systems. Just because they CAN run OSX, they likely
won't. There just isn't a compelling reason for those who don't care
about the OS to try MacOS (unless they find the iApps so intriguing that
they just have to give a try). So just because its available, doesn't
mean that everybody is going to buy it. In fact, I'd venture to say that
the same buyers who stretch a bit to afford a Mac now would be it's
total user base even if and when Apple decided to release OSX for
generic Winboxes. The market for the Mac experience is pretty finite,
and Apple will be MUCH better off selling 100,000 new Macs a year than
they would be selling 100,000 OSX installs for generic Winboxes.
You do the math.
>
> > > Now that Apple's ditching their own design work
> >
> > Where do you get that from? You seem to be convinced that all an
> > Intel-based Mac would be is an Acer motherboard stuck in a Mac case.
> > This is incorrect.
>
> If it runs Windows, it's a generic motherboard.
I'll bet that it won't run Windows - not without some "runtime" software
from Microsoft, probably sold under the banner of VPC. This software
will contain the BIOS info on port assignments, USB as the default I/O,
things that Mac hardware does differently from PC hardware. Remember,
the developer version of OSX Intel is purposely written to run on more
-or-less standard Intel hardware because it was expedient to do it that
way. If all that was needed was a PC motherboard in a Mac case, that
would be ready NOW. The first production Intel Macs are a year away.
They are that far out precisely because they aren't simply a PC MB in a
Mac case.
>
> > > I feel no strong need
> > > to buy a Mac anymore. "Intel Inside" is "Intel Inside" is "Intel
> > > Inside" as far as I am concerned, and I think I can do a better job of
> > > putting together an x86 box than Apple can.
> >
> > And that thinking is why you don't "get it" at all. But don't come
> > running back here and complaining about how poorly OSX runs on your home
> > brew Winbox. You have been told that an Intel based Mac is NOT a Windows
> > machine
>
> :) But they are...
>
> > and that you choose to ignore that admonition and run a hacked
> > version of the OS on some cobbled together PC is your problem, not
> > Apple's, not OSX' and not the Mac supporter's on this forum.
>
> "Cobbled together"?
>
> What is cobbled together about x86, George?
That you would be trying to run the X86 version of OSX on one makes it
"cobbled together." Let me repeat. If the release version of OSX Intel
will run on a Windows machine - out of the box with no hacking, or, if
an Intel Mac will run Windows with no auxiliary or "helper" software
from Microsoft, I'll eat my hat!
>
> The components:
>
> 1) CPU (Intel)
> 2) Chipset (Intel)
> 3) Video card (ATI or NVIDIA)
> 4) SATA hard disk
> 5) ATAPI optical
>
> That's not any more cobbled together than Macs.
You're off on a tangent. The PC isn't cobbled together, its the PC with
a hacked version of OSX on it that's cobbled.
> The wildcard here is the BIOS, but this is booted out of early, and as
> far as we know Apple machine will have a standard Intel BIOS (hopefully
> EFI).
Oh, good god why would they want to subject their user base to that
archaic garbage? They wouldn't. An Intel Mac will likely boot to a gray
screen with an Apple in the center for a few seconds, and then to the
blue load screen and then to desktop. If I see that goddamn primitive
black screen with the '70's green text on it, I'll throw up! Jobs isn't
THAT stupid!
George Graves
not_i...@btinternet.com (Peter Hayes) wrote:
It's better than any X86 hardware, by design, but that's irrelevant. The
Intel Mac will cost more than a regular Winbox irrespective of who makes
the Winbox. That's one reason why Apple CANNOT let OSX run on any other
Intel machine other than an Apple branded one.
The more I hear about this changeover to Intel processors, the less I
like it.
John Slade
"John" <nos...@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:11ik17g...@news.supernews.com...
> Showed up at a meeting today and noticed one of the attendees was
> RUNNING OS X on a Intel laptop today. Played with it a few minutes and
> it seemed to work great. Apple should just go ahead and sell OS X to
> everybody and wipe out Windows.
Nothing in the near future will wipe out Windows. However, OS X, if
properly marketed and implemented for the PC, can take a lot of market share
from Microsoft's Windows. I would get it and so would many of my PC using
friends.
Steve Jobs will probably release it for the PC if he can overcome his
instinctual tendency to be a control freak.
John
Wayne Stuart
> George Graves wrote:
> > In article <11ik17g...@news.supernews.com>,
> > John <nos...@nospam.com> wrote:
> >
> > > Showed up at a meeting today and noticed one of the attendees was
> > > RUNNING OS X on a Intel laptop today. Played with it a few minutes and
> > > it seemed to work great. Apple should just go ahead and sell OS X to
> > > everybody and wipe out Windows.
> >
> > But it wouldn't wipe out Windows.
>
> It could a big dent in it.
This old chestnut raises it's head like clockwork, doesn't it? All
this, "It's unfair to tie the consumer to a single supplier to use OS X.
Putting it on generic PC hardware would give consumers another choice
other than Windows, and Apple increases market share" - All sounds fine
and dandy in theory, but is it good business sense for Apple?
Right now, Apple makes most of its money on selling hardware, and if the
punters want the OS X experience, they have to buy Apple hardware.
Whether you think that's fair or not, that's Apple's business model, and
against all the odds, it seems to work for them, as is evident that
Apple are still around when others have long since departed.
If OS X was available for any generic x86 PC box of all makes and
configurations - a la Windows, ably demonstrating all the woes that go
hand in hand with this policy - to maintain the same or better
profitability, Apple are either going to have to limit its hardware
sales losses, or they're going to have to sell (as opposed to pirated
copies) a whole shitload of retail OS Xs to non-Apple hardware buyers to
counteract this loss in hardware sales. So are either of these
scenarios likely?
So say Apple does just this. What do you think Joe Public is going to
make of it?
Would hardware sales suffer? Undoubtedly, yes. Much? Ask yourself,
how many people do you think who have bought a Mac so they could have OS
X, but saw the Mac hardware as a merely a means to an end? If the
option was there, would they have bought/kept their existing cheap(er)
Dell (et al) or build it yourself box? If this number is significant,
then Apple has lost lots of hardware sales in this move.
So next, of those who have not gone Mac yet, whom Apple are going to
need to attract - i.e. the vast majority - how many would have done so
if not being limited to Apple hardware? With OS X usable on their
existing x86 hardware, maybe now they'll be queuing up in their tens of
thousands around the block to snap up a copy of OS X so they can finally
attain their utopia of banishing Windows from their systems. Or maybe -
as I suspect is more likely - most simply just don't care what OS they
use, or even aware that an alternative exists at all. The one that came
pre-installed will suffice, which is the same as the one their mates
use, and the same as the one they use at work etc etc... just so long as
they can do Internet stuff, do a bit of word processing, play MP3s, and
maybe play a few games. So what compelling reason do the masses have to
go out and hand over $130 to buy a second, less widely supported OS, go
though all the upheaval and uncertainly of such, when as far as they
know or care, it only does the same as what they already have, albeit
without the games?
Don't get we wrong, of course there'll be some more technically minded
souls who'll give it a try - the likes of which have probably already
dabbled with Linux, and the whom populate groups such as this - but
let's face it, that is a tiny tiny minority of people. Apple can't rely
of this few extra sales. Apple would need *huge* amounts of sales to
counteract the inevitable loss of hardware sales, and frankly, I just
don't see where these would come from.
I guess we'll see, but think about it, if you were in charge at Apple,
and your company was solvent and profitable, would you bet all this on
the possibility of increasing market share, where there's an equal or
more likelihood it would cripple your company? Would you still do it?
<snip>
> For Apple to break-even on OS licensing, it needs to sell 3 licenses
> for every lost hardware sale.
i.e. Unlikely, bad idea to top all bad ideas, ain't gonna happen,
fergetaboutit! Cynicism or realism? ;)
--
This message was brought to you by Wayne Stuart - Have a nice day!
Lefty Bigfoot
(in article
> Macs will maintain their present market share (give or take a point or
> two) no matter what they do,
It's called stagnation. Companies that suffer from it usually
die. All successful companies attempt to grow their business.
Being happy with 3 points isn't the goal, I'm sure.
> I personally think that this switch to Intel is ill advised
> and will come back at some point and bite Apple in the ass.
They don't have a choice. Powerbooks are so far behind on the
performance and power front that it's laughable currently. The
G5 towers are sweet boxes, but still not as fast as they should
be. If I could have OS X, photoshop and a bunch of other
graphics goodies running, but on PCI-Express (preferably SLI
even) hardware, that would be perfection.
> While, from an operational standpoint, it really doesn't matter
> which processor is being used, the more like a Winbox a Mac becomes, the
> more marginalized Apple becomes.
Only to customers that buy Apple just so they can separate
themselves from "PC hardware". The real point is providing a
complete solution, which includes, hardware, an OS and
applications, not just a brand of processor or a shape of a
chassis. Will a few people get upset because they can't be the
owner of a 'rare' computer? Maybe. Frankly, if I could buy a
Ferrari 430 spyder for $20,000 instead of $200,000, I'd be
ecstatically happy to have it, and not care if there were four
others in my neighborhood or not. On the other hand, if Ferrari
started selling rebadged Kias, I would be pissed off and not buy
one. In this case, Apple is moving to a hardware base that has
more features, better performance and better power properties,
but the OS and the applications will be basically unchanged
(apart from a recompile). Everybody wins. There is literally
nothing to bitch about, apart from not being able to pretend
you're special because you're the only on in your neighborhood
with a PPC.
> I myself will likely continue buying
> PPC Macs until I can get them no longer before switching to Intel.
Seems pointless. I'm happy with what I have now, but I won't be
buying another Apple until it has the new generation guts
inside. No sense in buying a discontinued product when you know
it's discontinued, especially if they aren't discounted. If
apple starts selling G5 towers at half price to move them out
the door, I *might* change my mind, but by that point, you still
won't have it very long before all the new versions of the great
software packages will be tailored for Intel macs instead of
PPC. It's a lose/lose.
> A
> product is defined by differentiation with its competitors, not by
> sleeping with them.
differentiation on important features, yes. If the end user
experience doesn't change at all (or even gets better) as a
result of an internal hardware change, 'sleeping with intel'
doesn't hurt ANYBODY, apart from maybe IBM, and from most
reports, IBM is glad to be rid of them.
> If, suddenly, Macs and PCs are the same, then why
> bother?
Because the motherboard is not the sum total of what makes a
computer system.
> Might as well run fucking Windows.
Ridiculous. The OS is far and away more important than the
processor choice. AMD versus Intel battles have made that
abundantly clear.
Donald McDaniel
> In article <0001HW.BF50526D...@news.verizon.net>,
> Lefty Bigfoot <nu...@busyness.info> wrote:
>
>>> Financially, what good does it to Apple if 500 million PC's in China
>>> are running one legal copy of OS X? Absolutely zippo.
>> You seem to be ignoring the very widely discussed possibility
>> that MS is happy (unofficially) with pirated copies, as long as
>> they sell enough legit ones, as it helps drive the demand for
>> Windows and applications for it, as being on 97% of desktops,
>> even if a large percentage are stolen, is better than having 3%
>> of the market and having them all be legit. The are the de
>> facto standard, largely because they waited for years, even
>> decades before putting any sort of reasonable copy protection
>> process in place, so that it would be a 'must have' instead of a
>> 'may have' for almost everybody on the planet. Numerous smart
>> folks have postulated over the years that it was a deliberate
>> move to seed copies in places they would not be otherwise.
>
> This doesn't sound very likely. For instance, every WIndows version since 95
> has required a serial number to install.
Haven't you ever heard of a Windows "Keygen" program? They crank out
"legitimate" keys by the truckload. These keys can even fool Windows
Genuine Authenication. They have no problems allowing activation via
the Internet.
>
> The above paragraph is more fitting for Mac OS which is a lot easier to pirate.
> Mac OS doesn't require a serial to install. One of the differences is of course
> that if people have a Mac, Apple has already cashed in on that person and one
> pirate version of MacOS less or more doesn't really matter. Having a PC doesn't
> give MS any money directly. You have to actually buy a copy of Windows for MS
> to make money.
Using a PC without Windows installed is currently a big pain in the a**
for the average user, or corporations, both of which are Microsoft's
user base.
>
>> Proprietary is dead. Linux, even if not the perfect product for
>> everyone, has settled that. Get over it. Move along. Now the
>> game is not putting so many restrictions into the OS that make
>> hollywood happy and every one else angry go to an open, free
>> product instead. If Apple tries to follow Microsoft into that
>> abyss, they'll both suffer for it.
Open Source makes no money for OS producers OR hardware manufacturers,
dude. I guarantee you the world is not going that way. In a few years,
all the geeks and hobbyists will die off, and then where will the Open
Source producers be?
Even RedHat is climbing the Corporate ladder of success (and making
MONEY, not friends.)
>
> I've toyed with the idea that have been discussed here lately that Apple should
> drop (or license) their hardware line and give away MacOS for free (for a
> limited time).
This is really a stupid idea. It's great for idealists, but won't wash
in the corporate world.
>
> It just could work. Apple still could build Pro machines with special Final Cut
> hardware and internal RAID or whatever to cater to the pros, plus they could
> keep up with the xServe line but let anyone make iBook and iMacs, i.e. license
> the design and r&d from Apple to put cool computers on the market.
Apple is NEVER going to make inroads into the Corporate market UNTIL the
hardware is MUCH cheaper. The OS price is good. So Apple has this
going for them. IF IT pros could install OSX on their Intel machines,
they would be happy as peas in a pod, since it would LOWER their
operating expenses DRASTICALLY.
They just don't like to purchase such expensive hardware as Apple
machines so they can install the OS (which is very reasonably priced)
on their millions of desktops.
Something tells me Stevie-boy is looking at all those millions of
machines and watering at the mouth wanting to put OSX on them. But he
must somehow overcome the traditionalists to do it.
> Apple could even still sell these on the apple store and have their apple logo
> on them, but let HP build them or whoever. You could even get a Compaq "Built
> for Mac OS X" computer scheme running where Apple had some standards for the
> looks and quality of the hardware, but the internals were up to Compaq as long
> as it was supported by Mac OS.
I don't exactly like this. I want to see an Apple-engineered machine
for those desktops. Having used both Wintels and my "new" G5, I can
never go back to the Wintel platform. Apple just needs to lower the
price a little (maybe 20% or so.)
>
> And when MacOS has been totally free for anyone with a x86 computer for maybe
> two years start charging $89 for it and cut of the WIndows version of iTunes so
> that anyone that want to use the iTMS needs to boot into MacOS... I don't know
> if that's very good, it's just an idea I got.
This would be a disaster for Apple, I assure you.
==
Donald L McDaniel
Please reply to the original thread,
so that it may remain intact
=======================================================================================
Snit
1h304x7.q3ycxl8jzygqN%m...@privacy.net on 9/16/05 2:49 PM:
John Slade should print out your comments and frame them. :)
--
Picture of a tuna soda: http://snipurl.com/f351
Feel free to ask for the recipe.
imout...@mac.com
> "imout...@mac.com" <imout...@mac.com> stated in post
> 1126901198....@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com on 9/16/05 1:06 PM:
>
> > proprietary maker, and becoming an Intel OEM.
>
> Apple has announced they are moving to Intel, but where did you get the idea
> that they are no longer going to be making proprietary hardware?
Phil Shiller said Macs would run Windows or words to that effect.
If it runs Windows it's not proprietary.
> >> And the "big deal" is that an X86 Mac is not about "just slapping an Apple
> >> Logo on an X86 box" It's about slapping an X86 processor inside of a Mac
> >
> > thing is, this involves a lot more than just the processor: the
> > chipset. Ever since the 2nd generation power macs Apple hardware has
> > been steadily been devolving -- first PCI, then USB, AGP, now the
> > chipset and CPU. What's left?
>
> All that matters: the experience. It is something many Windows folks do not
> get - OS X could run on chocolate chips and it would not matter - as long as
> the overall experience was still good (for my part, if Apple did that I
> would prefer dark chocolate).
Well, for me, a significant part of the Mac UE was the absence of BIOS
setup (95% of that crap is wankerville), clunky VGA boot screens,
excellent sleep/wake behavior, firewire well-integrated with the OS,
etc.
OS X is nice and all but there is significant likelihood that the Mac
as a whole will be taking a step backwards going Intel, unless Apple
adopts EFI etc.
> >> and if you don't see or understand the
> >> difference, then you probably shouldn't be trying to discuss something
> >> that you don't "get".
> >
> > What I don't get, and what you haven't provided any light on, is how an
> > Apple x86 box is going to be different than an eg. Dell x86 box.
>
> If nothing else (and that is unlikely), OS X. The fact that the OS will be
> built by the some folks who build the machine will also help - it always has
> in the past, anyway.
Actually this "same folks" stuff may have been a hindrance in some
respects. It's better to have graphics drivers in-house, but Apple has
outsourced that work to ATI and NVIDIA a long time ago.
The only thing "in house" now is the chipset, and OS X software people
don't really deal with that at all.
Donald McDaniel
"OSX would be just another OS choice..." George, you just don't know
Windows users very well. They are DYING for a usable OS. Windows just
doesn't deliver on its hype and advertising. I know. I've been a
Microsoftie since the 80s, and have grown increasingly disenchanted with
the OS ever since. Windows is constantly crashing, even on a
well-engineered machine, and the OS is not very well integrated with the
hardware, and the plethora of OEMS is driving us CRAZY!!! Windows users
want a NEW OS, PERIOD.
The MAIN reason the Windows world does NOT change over to Apple machine
is the PRICE of an Apple machine. An Apple machine is not so much more
expensive to produce than a Wintel machine, yet Apple continues to
charge exhorbitant prices for its hardware.
Apple does NOT really produce its own hardware. It farms it out to OEMS
in Taiwan. If you order a Mac from Apple's web-store today, it will
ship from TAIWAN, not Cupertino. The only Intel OEM I know of who
produces its own motherboards (logic boards to you) is Gateway, and I'm
not sure even they still produce them. For all I know, even they have
farmed out their production lines to Far-Eastern OEMS.
The ONLY differences between a run-of-the-mill Wintel box and a MACtel
will be the container (the fancy aluminum case) and a small chip on the
logic board which will authenticate the machine to OSX/MACtel. And of
course, the Apple logo and the OS itself. But anyone can slap on an
Apple logo. I can slap one on my TV. Does that make it an Apple? Of
course not. What really makes it an Apple is the OS, and the production
of the OS will ALWAYS be done by Apple engineers in an Apple campus
somewhere, not Taiwaneese student engineers just out of tradeschool.
There really isn't much more diference, other than the port design and
lack of a BIOS in the MACtel. So what if Macs don't have serial ports?
The serial port on a Wintel machine is much like our appendix --
mostly useless. It is there mostly for compatibility with earlier
Microsoft software, and a few modems. When the world goes broadband in
a big way, even Wintel manufacturers will drop serial ports.
I don't mind having to use an "Apple produced" machine in order to use
OSX (after all, I didn't have to pay for my machine, it was passed on to
me by my brother when he upgraded to a newer G5). However, almost all
others have to pay Apple's exhorbitant prices for "their" hardware.
==
Donald McDaniel
Please reply to the original thread,
so that it may remain intact.
===================================================================================================
Snit
> Snit wrote:
>> "imout...@mac.com" <imout...@mac.com> stated in post
>> 1126901198....@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com on 9/16/05 1:06 PM:
>>
>>> Apple has announced they're getting out of the hardware industry as a
>>> proprietary maker, and becoming an Intel OEM.
>>
>> Apple has announced they are moving to Intel, but where did you get the idea
>> that they are no longer going to be making proprietary hardware?
>
> Phil Shiller said Macs would run Windows or words to that effect.
>
> If it runs Windows it's not proprietary.
What an odd definition of "proprietary". Apple will likely have proprietary
hardware if, for no other reason, to make it harder to run OS X on other
systems.
>
>>>> And the "big deal" is that an X86 Mac is not about "just slapping an Apple
>>>> Logo on an X86 box" It's about slapping an X86 processor inside of a Mac
>>>
>>> thing is, this involves a lot more than just the processor: the
>>> chipset. Ever since the 2nd generation power macs Apple hardware has
>>> been steadily been devolving -- first PCI, then USB, AGP, now the
>>> chipset and CPU. What's left?
>>
>> All that matters: the experience. It is something many Windows folks do not
>> get - OS X could run on chocolate chips and it would not matter - as long as
>> the overall experience was still good (for my part, if Apple did that I
>> would prefer dark chocolate).
>
> Well, for me, a significant part of the Mac UE was the absence of BIOS
> setup (95% of that crap is wankerville), clunky VGA boot screens,
> excellent sleep/wake behavior, firewire well-integrated with the OS,
> etc.
Those are all a part of the Mac experience. I sure hope the Intel Macs do
not lose that - even if things change to some extent. I will be sorely
disappointed if Macs gain that crud of the x86 platform.
>
> OS X is nice and all but there is significant likelihood that the Mac
> as a whole will be taking a step backwards going Intel, unless Apple
> adopts EFI etc.
I, for one, hope they do (or something similar).
>
>>>> and if you don't see or understand the
>>>> difference, then you probably shouldn't be trying to discuss something
>>>> that you don't "get".
>>>
>>> What I don't get, and what you haven't provided any light on, is how an
>>> Apple x86 box is going to be different than an eg. Dell x86 box.
>>
>> If nothing else (and that is unlikely), OS X. The fact that the OS will be
>> built by the some folks who build the machine will also help - it always has
>> in the past, anyway.
>
> Actually this "same folks" stuff may have been a hindrance in some
> respects. It's better to have graphics drivers in-house, but Apple has
> outsourced that work to ATI and NVIDIA a long time ago.
Sure - much of what "Apple" does is outsourced - but Apple still is
responsible for it, test it, etc. If you get a Dell and the OS fails on you
they eventually send you to MS. If you get a Mac you go to Apple. They
buck stops there.
>
> The only thing "in house" now is the chipset, and OS X software people
> don't really deal with that at all.
I am not suggesting I want an not-invented-here syndrome... Apple has
suffered from that in the past.
--
If A = B and B = C, then A = C, except where void or prohibited by law.
Roy Santoro, Psycho Proverb Zone (http://snipurl.com/BurdenOfProof)
imout...@mac.com
> In article <1126901198....@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com>,
> imout...@mac.com wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
> > You still have failed to answer how an Apple x86 box will be different
> > than a Dell x86 box. Both will run Windows, implying great commonality.
>
> How do you know that the final, released Intel Macs will run Windows
> without some kind of "runtime" software, likely provided by MS as VPC
> software?
Cuz Phil Shiller said they wouldn't go out of their way to make Windows
not run.
> I'll tell you how the Intel Macs are likely to be different from a Dell
> X86 box. The Mac will not boot into the DOS-like BIOS screen, and in
> fact, there won't be a BIOS screen. Macs will only have USB, Firewire,
> Ether, and audio I/O ports. They will not have serial, Centronics
> parallel, or PS/2 ports. Macs will not have floppy drives, and they
> won't have cases with drive sleds on them. You won't be able to press a
> button on the optical drive to open the drawer or eject the disc. The
> Intel Macs will look like Macs, and work like Macs and you'll have to
> look to see which processor its using. Intel Macs will also cost more
> than a Winbox, and will probably be as much more expensive than a Winbox
> as they are now.
I agree with everything but the mainenance of the price differential. I
think Apple will be getting much better deals on CPUs than from
Freescale and IBM, and its motherboard production cost will be lowered
too.
I certainly hope & pray Apple boxes don't have BIOS setup crap. But if
I had a choice between no BIOS and supporting all modern x86 hw, I'd
take the licensing.
> Most people don't buy quality unless they're forced to. Today, when they
> buy a Mac, they are getting a quality product because if they want a
> Mac, they have to buy Apple. If OSX ran on any old Intel junk (which I
> suspect that it won't, at least not initially) then people will buy the
> cheapest Winboxes that they can find and run OSX on it. Its not a
> question of Apple's boxes not being able to compete, it will be a
> question of QUALITY not being able to compete with junk - on price alone.
True enough. All hail the free market.
> > > Without the cash for R&D, Apple would no longer be innovative as it now and
> > > eventually be >marginalized out of business.
> >
> > The main innovation on the PC hardware front we've seen out of
> > Cupertino since 1998 has been the size, color, and/or backlighting of
> > the Apple logo.
>
> That's your opinion.
Got any countexamples? :)
I'm just reacting to Apple being behindhand with AGP speeds, memory bus
speeds, etc.
Now, Nintendo, Sony and Microsoft are actually bringing to market
kickass PPC boxes.
Apple? meh.
> > If Macs were actually across-the-board better than x86 PCs today you'd
> > have a point. We've got marginal things like better power management,
> > better boot UE, firewire target disk mode, auto-sensing ethernet ports,
> > cool integration with the display.
>
> All of which are part and parcel of the Mac experience, and all of which
> will still be there with Intel Macs.
>
> > But it remains to be seen what of the above will survive once the x86
> > boxes come out.
>
> All of it. It's part of what a Mac is all about.
We'll see. I'll be surprised if firewire TDM survives, but perhaps
Apple can hang a chip off an internal bus to handle this.
> > As a user, you should know that the bigger the platform, the more
> > software will be written for it.
>
> I have all the software I need, thank you. I don't need (or even
> necessarily want) Apple to be a "bigger" platform. I don't like change,
> and this entire move to Intel, to me, bodes ill.
Well, I would like to buy more software. And sell more software.
> > Selling the OS X DVD to everyone would provide an immense boost to the
> > OS X userbase, doubling or tripling it overnight.
> >
> > I'd trade that for Apple-branded hardware. No prob.
>
> I wouldn't.
It appears to me you are living in 1994 :)
> won't. There just isn't a compelling reason for those who don't care
> about the OS to try MacOS (unless they find the iApps so intriguing that
> they just have to give a try). So just because its available, doesn't
> mean that everybody is going to buy it. In fact, I'd venture to say that
> the same buyers who stretch a bit to afford a Mac now would be it's
> total user base even if and when Apple decided to release OSX for
> generic Winboxes. The market for the Mac experience is pretty finite,
> and Apple will be MUCH better off selling 100,000 new Macs a year than
> they would be selling 100,000 OSX installs for generic Winboxes.
>
> You do the math.
Well, it's useless arguing it here. I've done the math, and I see Apple
doubling its profits instead of treading water at 2.5%.
I think Apple will want to see the market reaction to the x86 designs
before opening up licensing, since hardware does bring a lot more money
in than just software (ask Ford in 2002-2003).
> > > > Now that Apple's ditching their own design work
> > >
> > > Where do you get that from? You seem to be convinced that all an
> > > Intel-based Mac would be is an Acer motherboard stuck in a Mac case.
> > > This is incorrect.
> >
> > If it runs Windows, it's a generic motherboard.
>
> I'll bet that it won't run Windows - not without some "runtime" software
> from Microsoft, probably sold under the banner of VPC.
This is contrary to what Phil Shiller has said.
> This software
> will contain the BIOS info on port assignments, USB as the default I/O,
> things that Mac hardware does differently from PC hardware.
My PC works fine with USB as the default. Even boots from USB.
> Remember,
> the developer version of OSX Intel is purposely written to run on more
> -or-less standard Intel hardware because it was expedient to do it that
> way. If all that was needed was a PC motherboard in a Mac case, that
> would be ready NOW. The first production Intel Macs are a year away.
> They are that far out precisely because they aren't simply a PC MB in a
> Mac case.
Apple may be working on custom chips to bring more of the Mac
experience to x86, or waiting for EFI to come out so it can junk the
crappy taiwanese BIOS stuff.
We don't know, but as I said above firewire TDM isn't worth not being
able to buy my machine from parts from newegg.
> You're off on a tangent. The PC isn't cobbled together, its the PC with
> a hacked version of OSX on it that's cobbled.
OK. We need to see the difference between Apple's x86 offerings and
bog-standard.
> > The wildcard here is the BIOS, but this is booted out of early, and as
> > far as we know Apple machine will have a standard Intel BIOS (hopefully
> > EFI).
>
> Oh, good god why would they want to subject their user base to that
> archaic garbage? They wouldn't. An Intel Mac will likely boot to a gray
> screen with an Apple in the center for a few seconds, and then to the
> blue load screen and then to desktop. If I see that goddamn primitive
> black screen with the '70's green text on it, I'll throw up! Jobs isn't
> THAT stupid!
Agreed. I hope. character-mode BIOS is what the Mac was trying to kill
in the first place.
Plus the x86 boot beep is identical to the Apple II boot beep, can't
see Jobs having a Mac boot up like an Apple II ;)
imout...@mac.com
> <imout...@mac.com> wrote:
>
> > George Graves wrote:
> > > In article <11ik17g...@news.supernews.com>,
> > > John <nos...@nospam.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > > Showed up at a meeting today and noticed one of the attendees was
> > > > RUNNING OS X on a Intel laptop today. Played with it a few minutes and
> > > > it seemed to work great. Apple should just go ahead and sell OS X to
> > > > everybody and wipe out Windows.
> > >
> > > But it wouldn't wipe out Windows.
> >
> > It could a big dent in it.
>
> This old chestnut raises it's head like clockwork, doesn't it? All
> this, "It's unfair to tie the consumer to a single supplier to use OS X.
> Putting it on generic PC hardware would give consumers another choice
> other than Windows, and Apple increases market share" - All sounds fine
> and dandy in theory, but is it good business sense for Apple?
>
> Right now, Apple makes most of its money on selling hardware
this is, actually, incorrect. For the most recent quarter, Apple had a
30% margin on an average sale of $1324, for a gross profit of $400 per
machine. With total unit sales of 1.2M, that's about $500M in profits
from selling hardware, slightly less than 50% of its gross margin.
> and if the
> punters want the OS X experience, they have to buy Apple hardware.
> Whether you think that's fair or not, that's Apple's business model, and
> against all the odds, it seems to work for them, as is evident that
> Apple are still around when others have long since departed.
I can agree with this. Problem is Apple is moving the Mac perilously
close to bog-standard x86.
Companies that do this, eg. SGI, Be, Amiga, haven't survived long.
> If OS X was available for any generic x86 PC box of all makes and
> configurations
well, not ALL makes. Apple is going to require SSE2 for instance.
> - a la Windows, ably demonstrating all the woes that go
> hand in hand with this policy - to maintain the same or better
> profitability, Apple are either going to have to limit its hardware
> sales losses, or they're going to have to sell (as opposed to pirated
> copies) a whole shitload of retail OS Xs to non-Apple hardware buyers to
> counteract this loss in hardware sales. So are either of these
> scenarios likely?
I think it's a 3:1 ratio. If Apple can sell 3 $100 licenses for each
lost hw sale, it is ahead of the game.
Note that laptops are a major part of Apple's business, and it should
still sell a lot of laptops even if it licenses since there isn't a BYO
laptop market yet.
> maybe play a few games. So what compelling reason do the masses have to
> go out and hand over $130 to buy a second, less widely supported OS, go
> though all the upheaval and uncertainly of such, when as far as they
> know or care, it only does the same as what they already have, albeit
> without the games?
Nothing. This isn't about the "masses". It's about increasing Apple's
marketshare above 5%.
> Don't get we wrong, of course there'll be some more technically minded
> souls who'll give it a try - the likes of which have probably already
> dabbled with Linux, and the whom populate groups such as this - but
> let's face it, that is a tiny tiny minority of people. Apple can't rely
> of this few extra sales. Apple would need *huge* amounts of sales to
> counteract the inevitable loss of hardware sales, and frankly, I just
> don't see where these would come from.
Tripling marketshare to 15% would be an immense win for Apple.
> I guess we'll see, but think about it, if you were in charge at Apple,
> and your company was solvent and profitable, would you bet all this on
> the possibility of increasing market share, where there's an equal or
> more likelihood it would cripple your company? Would you still do it?
No. I'd release the x86 boxes first to see how the market reacted.
Apple announcing that it is not requiring SSE3 is interesting though.
SSE3 came out with the Prescott, so all Apple hw *will* have SSE3. Yet
Apple is saying developers can't rely on it being there. Huh?
George Graves
m...@privacy.net (Wayne Stuart) wrote:
> <imout...@mac.com> wrote:
>
> > George Graves wrote:
> > > In article <11ik17g...@news.supernews.com>,
> > > John <nos...@nospam.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > > Showed up at a meeting today and noticed one of the attendees was
> > > > RUNNING OS X on a Intel laptop today. Played with it a few minutes and
> > > > it seemed to work great. Apple should just go ahead and sell OS X to
> > > > everybody and wipe out Windows.
> > >
> > > But it wouldn't wipe out Windows.
> >
> > It could a big dent in it.
>
> This old chestnut raises it's head like clockwork, doesn't it? All
> this, "It's unfair to tie the consumer to a single supplier to use OS X.
> Putting it on generic PC hardware would give consumers another choice
> other than Windows, and Apple increases market share" - All sounds fine
> and dandy in theory, but is it good business sense for Apple?
I don't see how.
> Right now, Apple makes most of its money on selling hardware, and if the
> punters want the OS X experience, they have to buy Apple hardware.
> Whether you think that's fair or not, that's Apple's business model, and
> against all the odds, it seems to work for them, as is evident that
> Apple are still around when others have long since departed.
Precisely. Allowing OSX to run on a Windows box is BAD for Apple
> If OS X was available for any generic x86 PC box of all makes and
> configurations - a la Windows, ably demonstrating all the woes that go
> hand in hand with this policy - to maintain the same or better
> profitability, Apple are either going to have to limit its hardware
> sales losses, or they're going to have to sell (as opposed to pirated
> copies) a whole shitload of retail OS Xs to non-Apple hardware buyers to
> counteract this loss in hardware sales. So are either of these
> scenarios likely?
No.
>
> So say Apple does just this. What do you think Joe Public is going to
> make of it?
>
> Would hardware sales suffer? Undoubtedly, yes. Much? Ask yourself,
> how many people do you think who have bought a Mac so they could have OS
> X, but saw the Mac hardware as a merely a means to an end? If the
> option was there, would they have bought/kept their existing cheap(er)
> Dell (et al) or build it yourself box? If this number is significant,
> then Apple has lost lots of hardware sales in this move.
>
> So next, of those who have not gone Mac yet, whom Apple are going to
> need to attract - i.e. the vast majority - how many would have done so
> if not being limited to Apple hardware? With OS X usable on their
> existing x86 hardware, maybe now they'll be queuing up in their tens of
> thousands around the block to snap up a copy of OS X so they can finally
> attain their utopia of banishing Windows from their systems. Or maybe -
> as I suspect is more likely - most simply just don't care what OS they
> use, or even aware that an alternative exists at all. The one that came
> pre-installed will suffice, which is the same as the one their mates
> use, and the same as the one they use at work etc etc... just so long as
> they can do Internet stuff, do a bit of word processing, play MP3s, and
> maybe play a few games. So what compelling reason do the masses have to
> go out and hand over $130 to buy a second, less widely supported OS, go
> though all the upheaval and uncertainly of such, when as far as they
> know or care, it only does the same as what they already have, albeit
> without the games?
Exactly what I was saying!
>
> Don't get we wrong, of course there'll be some more technically minded
> souls who'll give it a try - the likes of which have probably already
> dabbled with Linux, and the whom populate groups such as this - but
> let's face it, that is a tiny tiny minority of people. Apple can't rely
> of this few extra sales. Apple would need *huge* amounts of sales to
> counteract the inevitable loss of hardware sales, and frankly, I just
> don't see where these would come from.
>
> I guess we'll see, but think about it, if you were in charge at Apple,
> and your company was solvent and profitable, would you bet all this on
> the possibility of increasing market share, where there's an equal or
> more likelihood it would cripple your company? Would you still do it?
>
> <snip>
> > For Apple to break-even on OS licensing, it needs to sell 3 licenses
> > for every lost hardware sale.
>
> i.e. Unlikely, bad idea to top all bad ideas, ain't gonna happen,
> fergetaboutit! Cynicism or realism? ;)
Realism.
George Graves
imout...@mac.com wrote:
> George Graves wrote:
> > In article <1126901198....@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com>,
> > imout...@mac.com wrote:
> >
> > <snip>
> >
> > > You still have failed to answer how an Apple x86 box will be different
> > > than a Dell x86 box. Both will run Windows, implying great commonality.
> >
> > How do you know that the final, released Intel Macs will run Windows
> > without some kind of "runtime" software, likely provided by MS as VPC
> > software?
>
> Cuz Phil Shiller said they wouldn't go out of their way to make Windows
> not run.
That's quite a different thing than going out of their way to insure
that Windows DOES run.
> > I'll tell you how the Intel Macs are likely to be different from a Dell
> > X86 box. The Mac will not boot into the DOS-like BIOS screen, and in
> > fact, there won't be a BIOS screen. Macs will only have USB, Firewire,
> > Ether, and audio I/O ports. They will not have serial, Centronics
> > parallel, or PS/2 ports. Macs will not have floppy drives, and they
> > won't have cases with drive sleds on them. You won't be able to press a
> > button on the optical drive to open the drawer or eject the disc. The
> > Intel Macs will look like Macs, and work like Macs and you'll have to
> > look to see which processor its using. Intel Macs will also cost more
> > than a Winbox, and will probably be as much more expensive than a Winbox
> > as they are now.
>
> I agree with everything but the mainenance of the price differential. I
> think Apple will be getting much better deals on CPUs than from
> Freescale and IBM, and its motherboard production cost will be lowered
> too.
I read that their CPU prices will be higher than they are for the PC
makers. Don't know why, just read that somewhere when this whole fiasco
was unveiled.
No it isn't. He merely said that Apple wouldn't go out of their way to
keep the new Intel Macs from running Windows. He didn't say that they'd
go out of their way to make sure that the new Intel Macs DID run
Windows. Look, if the Intel Macs have an X86 in them, it means that
Windows won't need to run in emulation any more. But there will still be
a few differences in hardware configuration issues that Windows will
have to work around before it installs and runs. I think that Microsoft
will sell a version of the OS (Vista, perhaps) tweaked for the Intel
Macs, and likely sold under the name Virtual PC., But it would surprise
me if the machine ran Windows out-of-the-box.
Rick
> Rick wrote:
>
>> That wouldn't matter as long as people bought the Macs. Selling only OS X
>> takes the hardware purchase out of the equation, and reduces net income to
>> Apple.
>>
>
> This is a 'glass half empty' line of thinking.
>
> It only reduces per unit >profit margins<. Their >net income< OTOH,
> (quite a different thing) would likely increase because of volume sales,
> by an order of magnitude no less.
>
> Additionally, there's nothing to stop Apple from continuing to design,
> build and sell pretty boxes... unless of course the rumors about those
> pretty boxes are *true*, and that they're indeed mediocre hardware.
>
... except that the clone experiment showed that cheaper Macs didn't
expand the total sales, it cannibalized Apple's sale.
--
Rick
Wayne Stuart
> Wayne Stuart wrote:
> > <imout...@mac.com> wrote:
> >
> > > George Graves wrote:
> > > > In article <11ik17g...@news.supernews.com>,
> > > > John <nos...@nospam.com> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Showed up at a meeting today and noticed one of the attendees was
> > > > > RUNNING OS X on a Intel laptop today. Played with it a few
> > > > > minutes and it seemed to work great. Apple should just go ahead
> > > > > and sell OS X to everybody and wipe out Windows.
> > > >
> > > > But it wouldn't wipe out Windows.
> > >
> > > It could a big dent in it.
> >
> > This old chestnut raises it's head like clockwork, doesn't it? All
> > this, "It's unfair to tie the consumer to a single supplier to use OS X.
> > Putting it on generic PC hardware would give consumers another choice
> > other than Windows, and Apple increases market share" - All sounds fine
> > and dandy in theory, but is it good business sense for Apple?
> >
> > Right now, Apple makes most of its money on selling hardware
>
> this is, actually, incorrect. For the most recent quarter, Apple had a
> 30% margin on an average sale of $1324, for a gross profit of $400 per
> machine. With total unit sales of 1.2M, that's about $500M in profits
> from selling hardware, slightly less than 50% of its gross margin.
Okay, assuming that's accurate, the only useful comparison would be
between Mac hardware sales, and retail OS X sales, i.e excluding iPod
stuff and other software sales.
> > and if the
> > punters want the OS X experience, they have to buy Apple hardware.
> > Whether you think that's fair or not, that's Apple's business model, and
> > against all the odds, it seems to work for them, as is evident that
> > Apple are still around when others have long since departed.
>
> I can agree with this. Problem is Apple is moving the Mac perilously
> close to bog-standard x86.
>
> Companies that do this, eg. SGI, Be, Amiga, haven't survived long.
Regardless of what form their hardware takes, they're still going to
need to sell it. If the consumer doesn't have to buy it, then
some/many/most (delete as applicable) won't, thereby Apple loses another
hardware sale which they're going to need to counteract with many more
retail copies of OS X86.
> > If OS X was available for any generic x86 PC box of all makes and
> > configurations
>
> well, not ALL makes. Apple is going to require SSE2 for instance.
Imagine the negative spin some could put on that when their particular
Frankenstein box is not supported. ;)
> > - a la Windows, ably demonstrating all the woes that go
> > hand in hand with this policy - to maintain the same or better
> > profitability, Apple are either going to have to limit its hardware
> > sales losses, or they're going to have to sell (as opposed to pirated
> > copies) a whole shitload of retail OS Xs to non-Apple hardware buyers to
> > counteract this loss in hardware sales. So are either of these
> > scenarios likely?
>
> I think it's a 3:1 ratio. If Apple can sell 3 $100 licenses for each
> lost hw sale, it is ahead of the game.
And you think that's likely? I don't. I have no evidence for this,
other than my observations of Average Joe whose circles I move in. The
lure of following the herd is too strong to resist. OS X86 isn't going
to change that.
> Note that laptops are a major part of Apple's business, and it should
> still sell a lot of laptops even if it licenses since there isn't a BYO
> laptop market yet.
Hmmm... yes, maybe. Or would they buy a cheaper Toshiba or Dell or
No-name-cheapo-slab instead? If your figures are correct, for every one
who decides they can forsake the pretty Mac laptop for a cheaper
supermarket special offer alternative, they need to find 2 additional OS
X86 buyers. Tall order.
> > maybe play a few games. So what compelling reason do the masses have to
> > go out and hand over $130 to buy a second, less widely supported OS, go
> > though all the upheaval and uncertainly of such, when as far as they
> > know or care, it only does the same as what they already have, albeit
> > without the games?
>
> Nothing. This isn't about the "masses". It's about increasing Apple's
> marketshare above 5%.
So if they're not going to appeal to the unwashed masses, where is this
market share coming from? Techie nerds 'experimenting' with OS X on
their DIY boxes is fine - at least those who didn't get a warez copy off
their mates - but if it came at the expense of hardware sales elsewhere
in their existing buyer demographic, how is that good for Apple's bottom
line?
> > Don't get we wrong, of course there'll be some more technically minded
> > souls who'll give it a try - the likes of which have probably already
> > dabbled with Linux, and the whom populate groups such as this - but
> > let's face it, that is a tiny tiny minority of people. Apple can't rely
> > of this few extra sales. Apple would need *huge* amounts of sales to
> > counteract the inevitable loss of hardware sales, and frankly, I just
> > don't see where these would come from.
>
> Tripling marketshare to 15% would be an immense win for Apple.
Yet this 15% is not coming from the masses?
> > I guess we'll see, but think about it, if you were in charge at Apple,
> > and your company was solvent and profitable, would you bet all this on
> > the possibility of increasing market share, where there's an equal or
> > more likelihood it would cripple your company? Would you still do it?
>
> No. I'd release the x86 boxes first to see how the market reacted.
>
> Apple announcing that it is not requiring SSE3 is interesting though.
> SSE3 came out with the Prescott, so all Apple hw *will* have SSE3. Yet
> Apple is saying developers can't rely on it being there. Huh?
I question what was meant by this not requiring SSE3 thing. Maybe we're
reading too much into this. Maybe they just meant that you don't have
to use SSE3, just like you don' t have to use Altivec now. I dunno.
imout...@mac.com
> <imout...@mac.com> wrote:
>
> > > Right now, Apple makes most of its money on selling hardware
> >
> > this is, actually, incorrect. For the most recent quarter, Apple had a
> > 30% margin on an average sale of $1324, for a gross profit of $400 per
> > machine. With total unit sales of 1.2M, that's about $500M in profits
> > from selling hardware, slightly less than 50% of its gross margin.
>
> Okay, assuming that's accurate, the only useful comparison would be
> between Mac hardware sales, and retail OS X sales, i.e excluding iPod
> stuff and other software sales.
Nah, the halo effect works both ways. People running OS X are more
likely to buy another iPod, or whatever device Apple has coming down
the pike.
And of course software sales are another line item linked to the
installed base.
I agree that hardware sales are Apple's /largest/ source of revenue
ATM, but Apple can either be a big fish in a small pond or try to be a
*bigger* fish in a bigger pond.
I'm not seeing much value-add by *not* just licensing OS X, but I do
agree it is somewhat risky.
If Apple had a stronger suite of software the risk would be more
justified, but iWork doesn't quite cut it.
> > > and if the
> > > punters want the OS X experience, they have to buy Apple hardware.
> > > Whether you think that's fair or not, that's Apple's business model, and
> > > against all the odds, it seems to work for them, as is evident that
> > > Apple are still around when others have long since departed.
> >
> > I can agree with this. Problem is Apple is moving the Mac perilously
> > close to bog-standard x86.
> >
> > Companies that do this, eg. SGI, Be, Amiga, haven't survived long.
>
> Regardless of what form their hardware takes, they're still going to
> need to sell it. If the consumer doesn't have to buy it, then
> some/many/most (delete as applicable) won't, thereby Apple loses another
> hardware sale which they're going to need to counteract with many more
> retail copies of OS X86.
and/or software sales, like FCP...
> > > If OS X was available for any generic x86 PC box of all makes and
> > > configurations
> >
> > well, not ALL makes. Apple is going to require SSE2 for instance.
>
> Imagine the negative spin some could put on that when their particular
> Frankenstein box is not supported. ;)
Yeah, Be ran into this same buzzsaw. But I'm willing to wager every box
that runs Vista well will also run OS X well. Hardware has become a lot
more consolidated since the mid-90s.
> > > - a la Windows, ably demonstrating all the woes that go
> > > hand in hand with this policy - to maintain the same or better
> > > profitability, Apple are either going to have to limit its hardware
> > > sales losses, or they're going to have to sell (as opposed to pirated
> > > copies) a whole shitload of retail OS Xs to non-Apple hardware buyers to
> > > counteract this loss in hardware sales. So are either of these
> > > scenarios likely?
> >
> > I think it's a 3:1 ratio. If Apple can sell 3 $100 licenses for each
> > lost hw sale, it is ahead of the game.
>
> And you think that's likely? I don't. I have no evidence for this,
> other than my observations of Average Joe whose circles I move in. The
> lure of following the herd is too strong to resist. OS X86 isn't going
> to change that.
Well, why would Apple lose a hw sale here? People following the herd
aren't buying Macs anyway.
Apple x86 hw not good enough to keep the faithful from trying their
luck with a license?
> > Note that laptops are a major part of Apple's business, and it should
> > still sell a lot of laptops even if it licenses since there isn't a BYO
> > laptop market yet.
>
> Hmmm... yes, maybe. Or would they buy a cheaper Toshiba or Dell or
> No-name-cheapo-slab instead? If your figures are correct, for every one
> who decides they can forsake the pretty Mac laptop for a cheaper
> supermarket special offer alternative, they need to find 2 additional OS
> X86 buyers. Tall order.
Out of 200M people buying computers this year? Don't think so.
> > > maybe play a few games. So what compelling reason do the masses have to
> > > go out and hand over $130 to buy a second, less widely supported OS, go
> > > though all the upheaval and uncertainly of such, when as far as they
> > > know or care, it only does the same as what they already have, albeit
> > > without the games?
> >
> > Nothing. This isn't about the "masses". It's about increasing Apple's
> > marketshare above 5%.
>
> So if they're not going to appeal to the unwashed masses, where is this
> market share coming from? Techie nerds 'experimenting' with OS X on
> their DIY boxes is fine - at least those who didn't get a warez copy off
> their mates - but if it came at the expense of hardware sales elsewhere
> in their existing buyer demographic, how is that good for Apple's bottom
> line?
Depends to what extent Apple starts selling better shrinkwrap software,
but there is a population outside the wintel herd and the mac faithful.
Businesses sick of paying the Microsoft tax for crap and high TCO, or
tired of waiting for Linus's ship to come in.
Schools looking to provide their students with the best software AND
industry standard Windows training.
(I hadn't thought of the educational angle for Apple's x86 move -- this
is going to be BIG for Apple's momentum in education).
> > > Don't get we wrong, of course there'll be some more technically minded
> > > souls who'll give it a try - the likes of which have probably already
> > > dabbled with Linux, and the whom populate groups such as this - but
> > > let's face it, that is a tiny tiny minority of people. Apple can't rely
> > > of this few extra sales. Apple would need *huge* amounts of sales to
> > > counteract the inevitable loss of hardware sales, and frankly, I just
> > > don't see where these would come from.
> >
> > Tripling marketshare to 15% would be an immense win for Apple.
>
> Yet this 15% is not coming from the masses?
Right. Apple has about 5% of the US market, more like 10% for portables
AFAIK.
The masses are cheap bastards and will just pirate OS X so they don't
count.
But Apple had a 15% market share back in 1993 and I think they can win
these people back with a liberal licensing scheme.
> > Apple announcing that it is not requiring SSE3 is interesting though.
> > SSE3 came out with the Prescott, so all Apple hw *will* have SSE3. Yet
> > Apple is saying developers can't rely on it being there. Huh?
>
> I question what was meant by this not requiring SSE3 thing. Maybe we're
> reading too much into this. Maybe they just meant that you don't have
> to use SSE3, just like you don' t have to use Altivec now. I dunno.
No:
"The first two are defined to be part of the baseline hardware
requirement for MacOS X for Intel. SSE3 has been recently introduced
(first in the Prescott family of Pentium 4 processors) and may or may
not be available on a machine running MacOS X for Intel."
imout...@mac.com
> In article <1126911367.1...@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
> imout...@mac.com wrote:
>
> > I agree with everything but the mainenance of the price differential. I
> > think Apple will be getting much better deals on CPUs than from
> > Freescale and IBM, and its motherboard production cost will be lowered
> > too.
>
> I read that their CPU prices will be higher than they are for the PC
> makers. Don't know why, just read that somewhere when this whole fiasco
> was unveiled.
Apple is a top-5 OEM willing to stiff AMD. This will give them
top-drawer status with Intel.
> > > I'll bet that it won't run Windows - not without some "runtime" software
> > > from Microsoft, probably sold under the banner of VPC.
> >
> > This is contrary to what Phil Shiller has said.
>
> No it isn't. He merely said that Apple wouldn't go out of their way to
> keep the new Intel Macs from running Windows. He didn't say that they'd
> go out of their way to make sure that the new Intel Macs DID run
> Windows. Look, if the Intel Macs have an X86 in them, it means that
> Windows won't need to run in emulation any more. But there will still be
> a few differences in hardware configuration issues that Windows will
> have to work around before it installs and runs.
Nah, you ever use Windows? Things it doesn't understand just get a
yellow question mark in the System Manager display.
If Apple does put extra stuff in their boxes it look like a PCI card or
whatever to Windows, and Windows PnP will just ignore it.
> I think that Microsoft
> will sell a version of the OS (Vista, perhaps) tweaked for the Intel
> Macs, and likely sold under the name Virtual PC., But it would surprise
> me if the machine ran Windows out-of-the-box.
Possibly this is true. It's all the same to Apple and Microsoft. Both
want the separate sales, for different reasons.
One thing that just hit me is education. Being able to run Windows is a
big, big, win for educational Macs.
Travelinman
imout...@mac.com wrote:
> Wayne Stuart wrote:
> > <imout...@mac.com> wrote:
> >
> > > George Graves wrote:
> > > > In article <11ik17g...@news.supernews.com>,
> > > > John <nos...@nospam.com> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Showed up at a meeting today and noticed one of the attendees was
> > > > > RUNNING OS X on a Intel laptop today. Played with it a few minutes
> > > > > and
> > > > > it seemed to work great. Apple should just go ahead and sell OS X
> > > > > to
> > > > > everybody and wipe out Windows.
> > > >
> > > > But it wouldn't wipe out Windows.
> > >
> > > It could a big dent in it.
> >
> > This old chestnut raises it's head like clockwork, doesn't it? All
> > this, "It's unfair to tie the consumer to a single supplier to use OS X.
> > Putting it on generic PC hardware would give consumers another choice
> > other than Windows, and Apple increases market share" - All sounds fine
> > and dandy in theory, but is it good business sense for Apple?
> >
> > Right now, Apple makes most of its money on selling hardware
>
> this is, actually, incorrect. For the most recent quarter, Apple had a
> 30% margin on an average sale of $1324, for a gross profit of $400 per
> machine. With total unit sales of 1.2M, that's about $500M in profits
> from selling hardware, slightly less than 50% of its gross margin.
I often wonder why people who can't even read a 10Q statement insist on
making things up.
According to Apple's latest 10Q, software accounted for $345 M out of
$3520 M total revenues.
Since Apple's hardware gross margin was 29.7%, the gross margin on
software would have to be well in excess of 100% for software to
contribute greater margin than hardware.
Travelinman
m...@privacy.net (Wayne Stuart) wrote:
> <imout...@mac.com> wrote:
>
> > Wayne Stuart wrote:
> > > <imout...@mac.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > > George Graves wrote:
> > > > > In article <11ik17g...@news.supernews.com>,
> > > > > John <nos...@nospam.com> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > Showed up at a meeting today and noticed one of the attendees was
> > > > > > RUNNING OS X on a Intel laptop today. Played with it a few
> > > > > > minutes and it seemed to work great. Apple should just go ahead
> > > > > > and sell OS X to everybody and wipe out Windows.
> > > > >
> > > > > But it wouldn't wipe out Windows.
> > > >
> > > > It could a big dent in it.
> > >
> > > This old chestnut raises it's head like clockwork, doesn't it? All
> > > this, "It's unfair to tie the consumer to a single supplier to use OS X.
> > > Putting it on generic PC hardware would give consumers another choice
> > > other than Windows, and Apple increases market share" - All sounds fine
> > > and dandy in theory, but is it good business sense for Apple?
> > >
> > > Right now, Apple makes most of its money on selling hardware
> >
> > this is, actually, incorrect. For the most recent quarter, Apple had a
> > 30% margin on an average sale of $1324, for a gross profit of $400 per
> > machine. With total unit sales of 1.2M, that's about $500M in profits
> > from selling hardware, slightly less than 50% of its gross margin.
>
> Okay, assuming that's accurate,
It's not.
You can generally assume that any financial information 'imouttahere'
provides will be wrong.
Travelinman
imout...@mac.com wrote:
> George Graves wrote:
> > In article <1126833735.7...@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
> > imout...@mac.com wrote:
> >
> > > What, exactly, is so special about the Apple logo on an x86 box that
> > > will prevent the company from becoming marginalized?
> >
> > Because if OSX ran on any Intel box, there would be no reason to buy a
> > Mac, and Apple would be out of the hardware industry.
>
> Isn't it already? What's the big deal about slapping an Apple logo on
> an x86 box?
>
> Is it just the the average $500 of gross margin selling the box gives
> Apple?
>
> Apple gets much better gross margins selling software.
>
How much higher? Apple's 10Q only says that software has higher GM.
But since hardware sales outweigh software sales by 9:1, there's no way
for the software sales to be high enough to make up for losing the
hardware - unless you can show that they'll sell many times as much
software.
ed
Travelinman <now...@nospam.net> typed:
<snip>
> How much higher? Apple's 10Q only says that software has higher GM.
>
> But since hardware sales outweigh software sales by 9:1, there's no
> way for the software sales to be high enough to make up for losing the
> hardware
why do you think there's "no way" for the software sales to be high enough
to make up for losing sales on hardware? do you think people would not pay
for os x over windows if they could do it on their current hardware? and
these things feed on themselves as well- if you have more os x sales, you're
going to have more sales from iwork, .mac, ilife upgrades, etc.
Travelinman
Donald McDaniel <inv...@invalid.com> wrote:
> George Graves wrote:
> >
> > You are wrong. This would be the worse thing that could happen. OSX
> > would just be another OS choice, like Linux and NeXT before it. People
> > would no longer differentiate between Macs and PCs and most would just
> > stick with the Windows OS that came with their box. It would cut Apple
> > off from it's main revenue stream. Without the cash for R&D, Apple would
> > no longer be innovative as it now and eventually be marginalized out of
> > business.
>
> "OSX would be just another OS choice..." George, you just don't know
> Windows users very well. They are DYING for a usable OS. Windows just
> doesn't deliver on its hype and advertising. I know. I've been a
> Microsoftie since the 80s, and have grown increasingly disenchanted with
> the OS ever since. Windows is constantly crashing, even on a
> well-engineered machine, and the OS is not very well integrated with the
> hardware, and the plethora of OEMS is driving us CRAZY!!! Windows users
> want a NEW OS, PERIOD.
I disagree.
Mac OS X has been around for a long time. If Windows users really wanted
a different OS, they could have bought it a long time ago.
I believe that 'good enough to get my work done most of the time' is all
they want - which is why they settle for Windows.
Travelinman
> George Graves wrote:
> > In article <1126845618.2...@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>,
> > imout...@mac.com wrote:
> >
> > > > Because if OSX ran on any Intel box, there would be no reason to buy a
> > > > Mac, and Apple would be out of the hardware industry.
> > >
> > > Isn't it already? What's the big deal about slapping an Apple logo on
> > > an x86 box?
> >
> > No, it isn't "already".
>
> Apple has announced they're getting out of the hardware industry as a
> proprietary maker, and becoming an Intel OEM.
>
Where did they announce that?
Please point to a single statement saying that new Intel Macs wouldn't
have any proprietary hardware.
Travelinman
not_i...@btinternet.com (Peter Hayes) wrote:
> George Graves <gmgr...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>
> > In article <1126833735.7...@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
> > imout...@mac.com wrote:
> >
> > > George Graves wrote:
> > > > In article <11ik17g...@news.supernews.com>,
> > > > John <nos...@nospam.com> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Showed up at a meeting today and noticed one of the attendees was
> > > > > RUNNING OS X on a Intel laptop today. Played with it a few minutes
> > > > > and
> > > > > it seemed to work great. Apple should just go ahead and sell OS X
> > > > > to
> > > > > everybody and wipe out Windows.
> > > >
> > > > But it wouldn't wipe out Windows.
> > >
> > > It could a big dent in it.
> > >
> > > > It would marginalize OSX
> > >
> > > How so? We haven't seen the Intel Apple product yet, but today's x86
> > > hardware shares a lot with Mac PPC hardware, eg Dell and gateway buy
> > > portables from the same Chinese factory that Apple uses.
> > >
> > > What, exactly, is so special about the Apple logo on an x86 box that
> > > will prevent the company from becoming marginalized?
> >
> > Because if OSX ran on any Intel box, there would be no reason to buy a
> > Mac, and Apple would be out of the hardware industry. A no hardware
> > Apple would be gone very soon, just like a no-hardware NeXT and for the
> > same reasons.
>
> I thought Apple hardware was supposed to be as good as any x86 hardware.
>
> So why can't Apple compete with quality x86 hardware manufacturers like
> Sony?
They can.
But no matter how well they do, alternate hardware will take SOME of
their business. The clone experiment showed that pretty clearly.
Snit
o3LWe.2506$Op3....@newssvr25.news.prodigy.net on 9/16/05 7:20 PM:
If I were in charge of Apple I would not bet on people buying enough copies
of OS X to make up for lost hardware sales - at least not now. Maybe if OS
X gains significant market share.
>
>> - unless you can show that they'll sell many times as much
>> software.
Which ed did not. Instead he tried to turn the question around on you.
--
BU__SH__
Travelinman
"ed" <news...@no-atwistedweb-spam.com> wrote:
Apple's TOTAL software sales are about 1/10 of their revenues.
Their gross margin on hardware is about 30%. At their current run rate
($6 B in computer revenues per year), they need to make up $1.8 B in
gross margin.
Let's say that the software is 50% GM - for arguments' sake. Given the
number of newbies who would be trying out OS X on home built hardware,
the support cost would undoubtedly be huge, so that might be too high.
At 50% GM, they need to get $3.6 B in software sales per year to replace
their current hardware sales. I don't know how much Apple nets on a
retail sale, but for simplicity, let's say it's $100. That means that
they need to sell 36 M licenses of OS X (and equivalent in other
software) just to break even.
I just don't see them selling 36 M copies of OSX for Intel.
GreyCloud
>
> George Graves wrote
> (in article
>
> >> Now that Apple's ditching their own design work
> >
> > Where do you get that from? You seem to be convinced that all an
> > Intel-based Mac would be is an Acer motherboard stuck in a Mac case.
> > This is incorrect.
>
> ports added to glue on proprietary toys. Woodah.
>
> >> I feel no strong need
> >> to buy a Mac anymore. "Intel Inside" is "Intel Inside" is "Intel
> >> Inside" as far as I am concerned, and I think I can do a better job of
> >> putting together an x86 box than Apple can.
> >
> > And that thinking is why you don't "get it" at all.
>
> is where all the importance is. OS X on anything (if its
> stable) is the important distinction versus Windws, not the logo
> etched on the board. This is a software issue, not harrdware.
> The only real issue that is an exception in all this is hardware
> driver support. It will take a long while for peripheral
> vendors to support OS X, even if Apple shipped a free copy of
> OSx86 to every household in north america tomorrow afternoon.
> However, if they published a list of what /is/ supported, or did
> a hardware scan at boot prior to partitioning the drive to let
> you know ahead of time of potential problems, they'd be 20 years
> ahead of Microsoft.
In Georges defense, hardware and software integration leads
to the highest form of reliability. It is the bean counters
of many companies that have lost sight of quality over
bottom line profits.
Example of what real high quality hardware/os integration
means is when the Irish Railroad system ran a VAX/VMS
computer to control their railroad for 17 years without a
hitch or a glitch.
In view of this, I've yet to see any UNIX systems lately
that can do this anymore. They used to but not anymore.
Sure you can believe that pumping out cheap boxes like Dell
does and making a profit, but where is the reliability at?
Could they pass the old Security ratings above the C level
any more? They can't.
I guess that's why mission critical systems use integrated
hardware/software designs over generic PCs like JSTARS for
the U.S. AirForce.
Putting OS X on a billy box will ruin Apple and marginalize
the company to the point of indifference... which is what
most of the wintrolls in here would love to see. But M$
themselves are running into troubles by the fact that they
**can't** produce an o/s like they used to do on time.
They're getting to be like IBM... impotent.
GreyCloud
> > imout...@mac.com wrote:
> >
> > > > Because if OSX ran on any Intel box, there would be no reason to buy a
> > > > Mac, and Apple would be out of the hardware industry.
> > >
> > > an x86 box?
> >
> > No, it isn't "already".
>
> Apple has announced they're getting out of the hardware industry as a
> proprietary maker, and becoming an Intel OEM.
>
> > about "just slapping an Apple Logo on an X86 box" It's about slapping an
> > X86 processor inside of a Mac
>
> thing is, this involves a lot more than just the processor: the
> chipset. Ever since the 2nd generation power macs Apple hardware has
> been steadily been devolving -- first PCI, then USB, AGP, now the
> chipset and CPU. What's left?
>
> > difference, then you probably shouldn't be trying to discuss something
> > that you don't "get".
>
> What I don't get, and what you haven't provided any light on, is how an
> Apple x86 box is going to be different than an eg. Dell x86 box.
The only possible difference would be a possible BIOS lock
on the o/s to prevent the o/s from running on a generic PC.
>
> Interestingly, Apple has recently let out of the bag that SSE3 will not
> necessarily be available. Since SSE3 has been available on all Intel
> CPUs since last year, it almost looks like Apple is leaving the door
> open to a wider licensing approach.
>
> > > > A no hardware
> > > > Apple would be gone very soon, just like a no-hardware NeXT and for the
> > > > same reasons.
> > >
> > > I disagree. NeXT was caught between the dual hammers of Macintosh at
> > > its competitive peak and the Windows 3.x/95 boom. Not to mention SGI,
> > > which was feeling its oats in the early 1990s.
> >
> > NeXT ported its OS to Intel and stopped building boxes. Crickets
> > chirped, potential users yawned, and the masses bought Windblows.
>
> Part of the response was due to the high licensing costs NeXT was
> forced to pursue due to its shaky financial health.
>
> > Apple is a HARDWARE company.
>
> ...soon no longer making their own proprietary hardware.
>
> > The last time they even tried to share the
> > hardware market by allowing clones, it almost killed them off.
>
> The difference today is that they are not subsidizing the clones by
> having to do all the R&D, or having to do all the hardware QA. That's
> Intel's job, and *APPLE* itself has become the "cloner".
>
> Apple really doesn't have all their eggs in the high-margin workstation
> basket like they did in the mid-1990s. Thanks to the iMac, iPod,
> aggressive software development, iTMS, the high-margin workstations are
> an afterthought as far as profit to the company goes.
>
> > Now you
> > are advocating that Apple let just any cheap Intel box run OSX?
>
> Pretty much any box capable of running Quake3 well, yes. So every
> machine built this decade.
>
> > That would be even worse for Apple than the cloning venture
>
> Nah. Cloners were crimping the late, great Apple's style of hardware
> innovation. Remember the GeoPort, the AV macs?
>
> By going x86, Apple Computer Inc has essentially thrown in the towel on
> PC hardware innovation, delegating it to Intel.
Well, they could've delegated it to AMD... or Fujitsu Sparcs
that Sun uses... or even IBM that makes the PPC. IF Apple
really is getting out of the hardware business, then AMD
would be the route to go as they have the upper hand over
Intel and can provide a lower cost solution than Intel could
offer. Even Sun Microsystems is using the AMD64 alongside
their better SMP UltraSparc IVs. The advantage here is
hardware/software support along with the fact that the o/s
is certified to run on a certain hardware configuration.
That's why Windows XP line runs only marginally well on
uncertified hardware. When HP gets ahold of XP o/s they do
certify it the best they can with what M$ provides... and M$
right now has no real incentive to help as they are a
monopoly. That's how a monopoly works by presenting
barriers to entry.
>
> > > As of now, the Apple of old is dead. SGI is circling the bowl, and
> > > Windows is dominant as it has ever been, yet Vista is a pretty big
> > > gamble for the company.
> >
> > Once again, you show your lack of understanding. The "Apple of old" is
> > not dead, it's still the same innovative company that it has always
> > been.
>
> Apple *Computer*, Inc. is dead. Steve just killed it. Welcome to
> AppleSoft and iTunes.
That will all depend on how thier X86 design stands. If it
is certified to work with only a few hardware
configurations, then it will be better than other x86
generics. If it isn't, then Jobs just screwed himself. But
I doubt it.
>
> > Some innovations work for them (iPods) and some don't (you are
> > aware that Apple produced the FIRST consumer digital camera, are you
> > not?).
>
> Good point. Apple has had a talent making innovative/stylish
> peripherals over the years (ImageWriter, LaserWriter, AppleTalk
> networking, the QuickTake, the iPod).
>
> > Apple has always been about one thing: The tight integration
> > between hardware and software. It's still about that.
>
> Well if Windows can run on their hardware, they're no longer in the
> hardware game as far as I'm concerned.
>
But not near as well or with any security in mind that is
needed.
Besides, why would Gates care with all his billions
anyway?? He has a monopoly.
> > > x86 is the settled standard. Person buying an x86 box has two choices:
> > > Linux or Windows. Apple could and should IMV join this game, instead of
> > > trying to maintain a Mac-label boutique ghetto in x86 land.
> >
> > You are wrong. This would be the worse thing that could happen. OSX
> > would just be another OS choice, like Linux and NeXT before it. People
> > would no longer differentiate between Macs and PCs and most would just
> > stick with the Windows OS that came with their box.
>
> You still have failed to answer how an Apple x86 box will be different
> than a Dell x86 box.
> Both will run Windows, implying great commonality.
>
Has Dell certified that Windows does indeed work well with
Windows??
I've seen no mention from Dell that their hardware is
certified to run Windows, just that it runs windows... and a
Dell can also run Linux.
> Once the Mac goes x86 OS X will be already "just another" OS choice.
And also where OS X still does not get viruses, malware...
all the bad stuff that plagues users of Windwoes.
> The difference will be that Apple will be requiring OS X chooser to
> choose Apple-brand x86 hardware too.
>
> > It would cut Apple off from it's main revenue stream.
>
> Apple could still offer Apple-brand x86 hardware, but if you fear
> Apple-brand hardware can't survive in direct competition with licensed
> OS X for generic x86, that says a lot about how "special" Apple-brand
> hardware will be, doesn't it?
This will be a strawmans argument as the o/s will be
certified to run OS X... but will Apple certify Windows to
run on their own hardware??
>
> > Without the cash for R&D, Apple would no longer be innovative as it now and eventually be >marginalized out of business.
>
> The main innovation on the PC hardware front we've seen out of
> Cupertino since 1998 has been the size, color, and/or backlighting of
> the Apple logo.
>
> If Macs were actually across-the-board better than x86 PCs today you'd
> have a point. We've got marginal things like better power management,
> better boot UE, firewire target disk mode, auto-sensing ethernet ports,
> cool integration with the display.
>
> But it remains to be seen what of the above will survive once the x86
> boxes come out.
>
> As a user, you should know that the bigger the platform, the more
> software will be written for it.
>
> Selling the OS X DVD to everyone would provide an immense boost to the
> OS X userbase, doubling or tripling it overnight.
Not if M$ has anything to do with it. Monopolies always do
whatever it takes to retain their monopoly position.
>
> I'd trade that for Apple-branded hardware. No prob.
>
> > > > > Looking at financials, Apple's making 30% gross margin on an average
> > > > > $1500 hardware sale, or $300 per machine.
> > > >
> > > > Where do you get that 30% figure? I was under the impression that
> > > > Apple's gross margins were about half that.
> > >
> > > No, Dell's are 18-20%. For 3Q05 Apple posted a 29.6% gross margin. This
> > > includes 1/3 of sales that were iPods, and those come in at 22%
> > > apparently, software is only 10% of sales so doesn't have much an
> > > effect on gross margin.
> >
> > That's right, software doesn't have much of an effect on gross margins
> > because Apple is a HARDWARE company. You just answered your own question.
>
> A hardware company with large fixed costs making hardware. One whole
> building on the Apple Campus (AC6) was devoted to hardware engineering.
> These days, this engineering work can be done by Ive himself, picking
> out the Pantone color of the plastic and which wat to mount the LCD.
>
> > > Getting sales churn on a 200M unit market looks more profitable than
> > > servicing a 20M market.
> >
> > It would not be.
>
> 200M x 10% market penetration x $100 license = $2 billion dollars per
> year.
>
> Looks more to me.
>
> I believe that Apple can get 10% penetration with OS X in open
> competition with Windows and Linux since I think it's better than both.
> You, for some reason, lack this estimation of OS X.
>
> > > Now that Apple's ditching their own design work
> >
> > Where do you get that from? You seem to be convinced that all an
> > Intel-based Mac would be is an Acer motherboard stuck in a Mac case.
> > This is incorrect.
>
> If it runs Windows, it's a generic motherboard.
>
> > > I feel no strong need
> > > to buy a Mac anymore. "Intel Inside" is "Intel Inside" is "Intel
> > > Inside" as far as I am concerned, and I think I can do a better job of
> > > putting together an x86 box than Apple can.
> >
> > And that thinking is why you don't "get it" at all. But don't come
> > running back here and complaining about how poorly OSX runs on your home
> > brew Winbox. You have been told that an Intel based Mac is NOT a Windows
> > machine
>
> :) But they are...
>
> > and that you choose to ignore that admonition and run a hacked
> > version of the OS on some cobbled together PC is your problem, not
> > Apple's, not OSX' and not the Mac supporter's on this forum.
>
> "Cobbled together"?
>
> What is cobbled together about x86, George?
>
> The components:
>
> 1) CPU (Intel)
> 2) Chipset (Intel)
> 3) Video card (ATI or NVIDIA)
> 4) SATA hard disk
> 5) ATAPI optical
>
> That's not any more cobbled together than Macs.
>
> The wildcard here is the BIOS, but this is booted out of early, and as
> far as we know Apple machine will have a standard Intel BIOS (hopefully
> EFI).
Maybe, maybe not. IF it is BIOS then a bios lock can be
used. If it isn't BIOS like many other vendors it will be
nvram like the Solaris, Alhpas, HP-Pariscs, etc. Then
Windows can't run on it.
GreyCloud
>
> GreyCloud wrote:
> > John wrote:
> >> Showed up at a meeting today and noticed one of the attendees was
> >> RUNNING OS X on a Intel laptop today. Played with it a few minutes and
> >> it seemed to work great. Apple should just go ahead and sell OS X to
> >> everybody and wipe out Windows.
> >
>
> I assume it was a hacked copy. I think it is available on the file
> sharing networks.
Oh. Most likely the prototype.
GreyCloud
>
> "John" <nos...@nospam.com> wrote in message
> news:11ik17g...@news.supernews.com...
> > Showed up at a meeting today and noticed one of the attendees was
> > RUNNING OS X on a Intel laptop today. Played with it a few minutes and
> > it seemed to work great. Apple should just go ahead and sell OS X to
> > everybody and wipe out Windows.
>
Right now, M$ problems are all internal. They're doing
themselves in by being more bureaucratic and between dept.
rivalry. I've heard that most often the right hand doesn't
even know what the left hand is doing anymore. It never
used to be that way. All it shows is the deterioration of
the company. This is already showing up as delays in
LongHorn -> Vista release dates.
> However, OS X, if
> properly marketed and implemented for the PC, can take a lot of market share
> from Microsoft's Windows. I would get it and so would many of my PC using
> friends.
Not if the monopoly has anything to say. Monopolies always
guard their position and stay there.
>
> Steve Jobs will probably release it for the PC if he can overcome his
> instinctual tendency to be a control freak.
>
You mean like Bill Gates does??
ed
Travelinman <now...@nospam.net> typed:
1- you're assuming they'd lose *all* hardware sales. why do you think this
would be the case?
2- you're making the wrong assumption that all increases in sales would come
from os x. what about iwork, ilife, .mac, etc? let's say they only lose
half their hardware sales for arguments sake (what was the proportion of
apple hardware vs clones when clones were allowed?); they'd have $900m to
make up. if they make up 3/4 of it in os sales (assuming the rest would be
via other software increases)- that's less than 7 million in unit sales
that'd be required to make up the difference. why's that so undoable?
Donald McDaniel
"Buying the Apple OS" doesn't just entail going out to the nearest
Software Mart or Amazon and picking up a copy of OSX for a few bucks,
relatively, and installing it on their machines. It also entails
investing in a completely new (and more expensive) hardware platform,
along with abandoning their investments of sorely-needed cash for their
Windows-compatible software. So your statement just doesn't wash with
reality in the 21st century financial climate.
>
> I believe that 'good enough to get my work done most of the time' is all
> they want - which is why they settle for Windows.
I'm sorry, man, but you are just wrong. You don't know what Windows
users want or don't want. I have been deeply involved with Microsoft
operating systems for many years. Not as a developer, but as a user.
The fact is, Windows users use Windows NOT because "it works, and that's
all that counts", but because it is the ONLY real game in town for Intel
machines, and because Apples are JUST TOO EXPENSIVE for the common man
and corporations to embrace that paradigm. So they STILL pay those huge
license fees for Windows, when OSes like Linux are FREE for the taking.
They don't want to face the STEEP learning curve involved with
switching to Linux.
If they could, most Windows users would rather switch to OSX than
continue to put up with Microsoft's machinations in the computer world.
They aren't inclined to switch to a FREE OS (Linux) simply because it
is just not ready for the desktop yet. But most IT professionals and
common users secretly steal glances over at the pretty brushed-aluminum
cases of "Apple" machines and their elegant Desktops. But they always
come up against the PRICE of an "Apple" machine, and don't make the
switch. I never would have been able to make the switch if my brother
had not given me his year-old G5 and associated software when he bought
the newest iteration of the G5.
But Apple just stands there, losing potential customers right and left
with their expensive machines and inexpensive OS. That Steve charges so
much for his machines, and so little for his OS never fails to astound me.
And there are MILLIONS of corporate desktops just WAITING for OSX, but
the price of the machines intricately associated with the elegant OS
removes such a switch totally out of their financial planning. After
all, they have to beg money from ACCOUNTANTS for their budgets, who are
not concerned with the ELEGANCE of a computer platform, but ARE
concerned with the PRICE of that machine. And the accountants are right
to think that way, after all, since it is they who must draw the "Bottom
Line" of a corporation's balance sheet and answer to their CEOs about
the financial health of the corporations those same CEOs built so
carefully and lovingly.
Steve announcing that Apple has secretly been writing an Intel version
of OSX and RUNNING it on an Intel machine alongside their versions for
"Apple" machines ever since it was first developed was the straw that
broke the camel's back. I mean, hope appeared in the hearts of those
millions of Intel owners and corporate IT executives who were trapped in
Microsoft's licensing web for the first time when Apple announced that
they were switching to the Intel platform. But their hopes were crushed
when Apple also announced that OSX would not be able to be installed
on their cheap (in price, not quality) Wintel machines, and they would
STILL have to pay exorbitant prices for an "Apple" machine if they
wanted to switch.
Oh, a few will make the switch: Usually those who are cash-flush, and
can afford the switch. But the majority won't make the switch. NOT
because Windows is a BETTER platform, but because they really have no
choice in the matter. They are TRAPPED in the spider's web, and can't
get out.
Steve could go a long way toward setting those Win-slaves free by
allowing OSX to be run on any Intel machine which meets the hardware
specs. But he won't (or will he?). For the sake of those pining
Windows users, hopefully, he will look down on these poor, sad
Win-slaves and extend the hand of mercy to them.
==
Donald L McDaniel
Please reply to the original thread,
so that it may be kept intact.
================================================================================
Donald McDaniel
> "ed" <news...@no-atwistedweb-spam.com> stated in post
> o3LWe.2506$Op3....@newssvr25.news.prodigy.net on 9/16/05 7:20 PM:
>
>> In news:nowhere-471BA6...@news.central.cox.net,
>> Travelinman <now...@nospam.net> typed:
>> <snip>
>>> How much higher? Apple's 10Q only says that software has higher GM.
>>>
>>> But since hardware sales outweigh software sales by 9:1, there's no
>>> way for the software sales to be high enough to make up for losing the
>>> hardware
>> why do you think there's "no way" for the software sales to be high enough
>> to make up for losing sales on hardware? do you think people would not pay
>> for os x over windows if they could do it on their current hardware? and
>> these things feed on themselves as well- if you have more os x sales, you're
>> going to have more sales from iwork, .mac, ilife upgrades, etc.
>
> If I were in charge of Apple I would not bet on people buying enough copies
> of OS X to make up for lost hardware sales - at least not now. Maybe if OS
> X gains significant market share.
OSX will NEVER gain "significant market share" as long as it is tied to
the expensive hardware currently associated with it. Corporations
simply can't afford the purchase of millions of machines just to use a
better OS, I assure you. IT managers are NOT in charge when it comes to
cash outlays. The Accountants are the ones in charge. And they would
rather pay $200 for a site license for Windows rather than pay an extra
$1000 for an "Apple" machine (remember, corporations don't buy ONE
machine at a time, like home users, they buy THOUSANDS) even tho the OS
is so much cheaper and more elegant than Windows.
Even home users, when faced with a choice between a $600 Dell with XP
Home Edition, and $1800+ for an "Apple" machine with OSX, almost ALWAYS
choose the $600 Dell, even tho the "Apple" platform is so much more
beautiful. Beauty never even enters into the equation (or maybe it does
in their heart-of-hearts), but I guarantee you, the size of the outlay
in cash or credit will ALWAYS outweigh the beauty of an Apple machine
for most home users and corporate IT executives.
Donald L McDaniel
========================================================================
Peter Hayes
Assuming a MacTel machine can run Windows, Apple can enter a market
orders of magnitude greater than the one they have now. They'll lose out
to some, but the potential net gain is massive.
Even if you assume that 95% of Windows users won't even know MacTel
exists, the remaining 5% are potential Apple customers. That's a market
double what they have at present. It's also a market share looking for
quality machinery and/or hassle free computing.
> The clone experiment showed that pretty clearly.
The clone experiment was completely different.
--
Peter
Peter Hayes
> It's better than any X86 hardware, by design, but that's irrelevant. The
> Intel Mac will cost more than a regular Winbox irrespective of who makes
> the Winbox.
People buy Winboxes at all sorts of price levels. Are you saying that
manufacturers of Winboxes priced above the regular Winbox don't sell
their product? Of course they do, or they'd be out of business.
Apple can enter that market and compete quite happily on the basis of
quality hardware and stylish design. Just look at the insides of a dual
2.75GHz G5 to see a product design that Windows users would die for.
> That's one reason why Apple CANNOT let OSX run on any other
> Intel machine other than an Apple branded one.
There'll be an HCL, just as there is with Windows 2000 or Linux.
> The more I hear about this changeover to Intel processors, the less I
> like it.
--
Peter
Travelinman
"ed" <news...@no-atwistedweb-spam.com> wrote:
The analysis clearly shows the order of magnitude. The fact is quite
simple that Apple stands to lose a lot - and needs to sell millions of
copies of OS X in order to make up for hardware losses.
Apple has decided that it's not worth the risk. I suspect that they've
done a lot more market research than you have.
Travelinman
Donald McDaniel <inv...@invalid.com> wrote:
Yet when they buy a new computer (which happens every 3 years or so),
they could switch with only a modest price premium.
>
> >
> > I believe that 'good enough to get my work done most of the time' is all
> > they want - which is why they settle for Windows.
>
> I'm sorry, man, but you are just wrong. You don't know what Windows
> users want or don't want. I have been deeply involved with Microsoft
> operating systems for many years. Not as a developer, but as a user.
> The fact is, Windows users use Windows NOT because "it works, and that's
> all that counts", but because it is the ONLY real game in town for Intel
> machines, and because Apples are JUST TOO EXPENSIVE for the common man
> and corporations to embrace that paradigm. So they STILL pay those huge
> license fees for Windows, when OSes like Linux are FREE for the taking.
Nonsense. Macs aren't all that much more expensive than Windows
machines. And for some people (those buying high end Windows machines),
the price premium is nonexistent.
If people really wanted quality, they'd buy Macs when they replaced
their machines. Instead, they stick with Windows.
Travelinman
Donald McDaniel <inv...@invalid.com> wrote:
This is, of course, nonsense.
When buying a new computer, Macs aren't all that much more expensive
than PCs. When you consider support costs, they're lower.
>
> Even home users, when faced with a choice between a $600 Dell with XP
> Home Edition, and $1800+ for an "Apple" machine with OSX, almost ALWAYS
You've simply managed to prove that you're not interested in a fair
comparison.
You can buy a Mac Mini for $499 plus monitor. Or an eMac for $699. Or an
iBook for under $1,000.
> choose the $600 Dell, even tho the "Apple" platform is so much more
> beautiful. Beauty never even enters into the equation (or maybe it does
> in their heart-of-hearts), but I guarantee you, the size of the outlay
> in cash or credit will ALWAYS outweigh the beauty of an Apple machine
> for most home users and corporate IT executives.
>
Interesting that you have to make up arguments. I don't recall EVER
seeing a Mac advocate favoring Macs because they're 'more beautiful'.
Travelinman
not_i...@btinternet.com (Peter Hayes) wrote:
That may be true. But they can enter that market without licensing the
OS>
>
> Even if you assume that 95% of Windows users won't even know MacTel
> exists, the remaining 5% are potential Apple customers. That's a market
> double what they have at present. It's also a market share looking for
> quality machinery and/or hassle free computing.
Yet those same people could buy Macs today and run VPC. Making Intel
Macs doesn't change that situation.
>
> > The clone experiment showed that pretty clearly.
>
> The clone experiment was completely different.
Not at all. Apple found that they didn't make enough money selling the
software as they did selling the hardware.
Donald McDaniel
"People buy "Winboxes at all sorts of price levels..." Yeh, right.
Especially corporate IT executives, who must purchase THOUSANDS of
boxes, not ONE, as the great majority of home users do. I grant you
that many higher-priced boxes for Windows are sold among hobbyists. But
corporate IT execs and the great majority of the rest of the rest of the
Windows market DON'T buy these machines. They buy the ones their IT
budgets and bean-counter overlords approve of.
I don't know the percentages of market-share for Apple sales to
corporations, but I am willing to bet that it is very low, as well as
being very low among home users; probably not as low among home users
when compared with corporate users, but still very low.
> Apple can enter that market and compete quite happily on the basis of
> quality hardware and stylish design. Just look at the insides of a dual
> 2.75GHz G5 to see a product design that Windows users would die for.
I look at the insides of my brother's dual G5 every day. And my G5.
And I weep for all the owners of Winboxes out there, since the G5
PowerPC design and engineering is so much better and sweeter than any
existing Winbox design. But I could only afford a G5 because my brother
GAVE me one out-right.
If your statement is true (and I give you that argument), HOW do you
explain Apple's lack of significant penetration into either the home
market, or the corporate market? If PowerMac's are so much greater and
prettier than similar Windows boxes (and they are. After all, my
brother has bought 2 PowerMacs in the last year, passing one on to me,
and I really love mine), WHY don't they sell as many or more boxes? I
will tell you why: Because Apple prices their boxes SO MUCH HIGHER then
an off-the-shelf Windows box, even tho the OS for those Windows machines
is so much more expensive. Apple flat prices its machines OUT of the
vast market out there just waiting for them. Sometimes I think they do
this intentionally, just to keep the unwashed masses from purchasing
them, and messing up their image of hoity-toity Artist/University-types
being their userbase.
After all, Steve wouldn't want Joe Blow from down the street spilling
his beer all over HIS beautiful keyboard, would he?.
Don't you realize that you can purchase a POWERFUL Winbox with MORE
MEMORY and FASTER processor, in addition to a smaller (but just as good)
flat-panel display $1000 cheaper than an under-powered PowerMac? Home
users and corporate IT execs EAT THIS UP like candy, because it fits
their budgets, not Steve's advertising campaigns. And purchasing a
PowerPC also entails purchasing SEPARATELY one of Steve's expensive
displays.
More and more Windows OEMS are providing a 17" flat-panel display in the
purchase price, whereas in the past, they only provided 15" CRTs. So
competition with Apple is no problem at all for them. When faced with
the choice of purchasing a beautiful G5 and a $600 Dell, they will buy
the $600 Dell every time, especially among IT executives, who are ALWAYS
accountable to bean counters and others higher up in the Corporate
structure. Even Joe Blow down the street is accountable to his "better
half" when it comes to making large cash or credit purchases. She may
think a G5 is beautiful, but her instinct for her family's financial
survival will always win out over her aesthetic sense.
I will admit that more and more Mac laptops are starting to gain market
share in Corporations and homes, but ONLY because they are getting
CHEAPER in addition to being elegant. For once, those IT execs can make
purchase decisions according to their aesthetic senses, rather than
being pushed around by bean-counters. But remember: This is because
Apple is beginning to price its laptops within their budgetary requirements.
>> That's one reason why Apple CANNOT let OSX run on any other
>> Intel machine other than an Apple branded one.
"True Believers" will ALWAYS have a reason why Apple "cannot" let OSX
run on any other Intel machine simply because "True Believers" are their
userbase, for the most part.
But I bet you that Market conditions will ALWAYS outweigh the aesthetic
senses of the vast majority of users out there, home users as well as
corporate IT execs.
It's simple: If Apple REALLY wants more market share, they are going to
HAVE to make pricing decisions for their products which they are NOT
inclined to make.
Donald L McDaniel
=======================================================================
Snit
11inj1n...@corp.supernews.com on 9/17/05 12:56 AM:
Why do you focus on the "beauty"? Macs generally have a better ROI and TCO
than Windows machines. And that, for a business, is beautiful. :)
ed
yes, i understand that- i just don't understand your assertion that there's
"no way" for the software sales to make up for the lost hardware sales- os x
is a nice piece of software after all!
> Apple has decided that it's not worth the risk. I suspect that they've
> done a lot more market research than you have.
yeah, yeah, you've said that about other things, and then apple's gone out
and done them, so what you suspect is really irrelevant, isn't it? =D
Peter Hayes
> Snit wrote:
> > "imout...@mac.com" <imout...@mac.com> stated in post
> > 1126901198....@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com on 9/16/05 1:06 PM:
> >
> > > Apple has announced they're getting out of the hardware industry as a
> > > proprietary maker, and becoming an Intel OEM.
> >
> > Apple has announced they are moving to Intel, but where did you get the idea
> > that they are no longer going to be making proprietary hardware?
>
> Phil Shiller said Macs would run Windows or words to that effect.
>
> If it runs Windows it's not proprietary.
But the whole package is, if OS X won't run on a Wintel machine.
There's actually two questions here. Will Intel OS X run on any x86
machine, which is the topic here, and will Windows run on an MacTel
machine?
Making "yes" the answer to both questions gives Apple two bites at the
Windows market, creating high quality hardware to run XP, Linux or OS X
on, and secondly, creating a high quality alternative to Windows for x86
machine owners to switch to.
OS X on Intel raises the possibility of running the likes of FCP on fast
and affordable x86 hardware. Users can also switch OS without a massive
hardware costs premium, and allied to this is the freedom from virus and
associated exploits.
This is the same scenario Linux offers the x86 owner, but Linux hasn't
succeeded because the application base is limited to 'routine' products.
OS X on Intel will offer a far wider software choice.
--
Peter
Peter Hayes
> In article <1126901198....@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com>,
> imout...@mac.com wrote:
>
> <snip>
>>
> > The wildcard here is the BIOS, but this is booted out of early, and as
> > far as we know Apple machine will have a standard Intel BIOS (hopefully
> > EFI).
>
> Oh, good god why would they want to subject their user base to that
> archaic garbage? They wouldn't. An Intel Mac will likely boot to a gray
> screen with an Apple in the center for a few seconds, and then to the
> blue load screen and then to desktop. If I see that goddamn primitive
> black screen with the '70's green text on it, I'll throw up! Jobs isn't
> THAT stupid!
Of course not, and he wouldn't be first either.
What's the problem? Just because some manufacturers can't be bothered
dropping a splash screen into their BIOS implementation is no reason to
assume it can't be done.
My Dell laptop presents a Dell splash screen until XP boots. There's a
"Press F2 for Setup" message for anyone wishing to alter the BIOS.
What I *don't* like about Mac booting is that nothing appears to happen
for several seconds, that's very disconcerting.
--
Peter
Peter Hayes
> Steve could go a long way toward setting those Win-slaves free by
> allowing OSX to be run on any Intel machine which meets the hardware
> specs. But he won't (or will he?). For the sake of those pining
> Windows users, hopefully, he will look down on these poor, sad
> Win-slaves and extend the hand of mercy to them.
And what do you suppose Billy Boy Gates would do? He'd see to it that
Apple were royally screwed, somehow or other, like no Office for Mac for
starters.
This is the core problem today. Anyone operating in the x86 space has to
look over their shoulder at the preditor waiting to knife them in the
back if they step out of line.
I suspect if OS X won't run on Windows machines, the heavy hand of
Microsoft will be the reason.
--
Peter
Snit
1h31rnm.ll4dpn1sgww8wN%not_i...@btinternet.com on 9/17/05 11:09 AM:
Apple does have to worry about the possibility of MS yanking MS Office -
that would be a big blow to Apple. Sure, Apple has iWork - and, well, that
just shows how badly they need MS Office. :)
Keynote is a fine program - though it still has some growing to do it
already competes well against PowerPoint for most users. Pages, however, is
deeply in need of an overhaul. With both the addition of a real toolbar
would be a great thing.
--
Picture of a tuna soda: http://snipurl.com/f351
Feel free to ask for the recipe.
Peter Hayes
Yes, $399 Dells. I visited someone in our local hospital a couple of
weeks ago. Dell laptops were everywhere, Dell workstations at the Nurses
Station, and so on. Millions worth overall - but doubtless purchased at
a price Apple couldn't match, even if the prospect of running anything
other than XP even filtered through the NHS bosses' consciousness.
> I don't know the percentages of market-share for Apple sales to
> corporations, but I am willing to bet that it is very low, as well as
> being very low among home users; probably not as low among home users
> when compared with corporate users, but still very low.
But what level of sales of OS X for x86 would there be? All those
corporates looking for an exploit-proof reputable OS? Linux could fit
the bill for some, but Apple's OS X would be easier to sell to the
executives.
> > Apple can enter that market and compete quite happily on the basis of
> > quality hardware and stylish design. Just look at the insides of a dual
> > 2.75GHz G5 to see a product design that Windows users would die for.
>
> I look at the insides of my brother's dual G5 every day. And my G5.
> And I weep for all the owners of Winboxes out there, since the G5
> PowerPC design and engineering is so much better and sweeter than any
> existing Winbox design. But I could only afford a G5 because my brother
> GAVE me one out-right.
>
> If your statement is true (and I give you that argument), HOW do you
> explain Apple's lack of significant penetration into either the home
> market, or the corporate market? If PowerMac's are so much greater and
> prettier than similar Windows boxes (and they are. After all, my
> brother has bought 2 PowerMacs in the last year, passing one on to me,
> and I really love mine), WHY don't they sell as many or more boxes? I
> will tell you why: Because Apple prices their boxes SO MUCH HIGHER then
> an off-the-shelf Windows box, even tho the OS for those Windows machines
> is so much more expensive. Apple flat prices its machines OUT of the
> vast market out there just waiting for them. Sometimes I think they do
> this intentionally, just to keep the unwashed masses from purchasing
> them, and messing up their image of hoity-toity Artist/University-types
> being their userbase.
Maybe it's because until recently Apple were not only extortionate but
ran that clunky MacOS. When Macs were $5000 in 1990, Wintel machines
were $3000. When Wintel machines cost $1000 Macs still cost $3000,
reinforcing the impression Apple were unaffordable for most. The
original iMac was the first to challenge that impression, but by that
time dealers were tied in to Wintel hardware and software and that's the
way it remains. Sadly.
Besides, Apple isn't associated with the games market, Wintel is.
And anyone can build a Wintel machine, the hardware 'geek' really hasn't
a look in at Apple.
> After all, Steve wouldn't want Joe Blow from down the street spilling
> his beer all over HIS beautiful keyboard, would he?.
>
> Don't you realize that you can purchase a POWERFUL Winbox with MORE
> MEMORY and FASTER processor, in addition to a smaller (but just as good)
> flat-panel display $1000 cheaper than an under-powered PowerMac? Home
> users and corporate IT execs EAT THIS UP like candy, because it fits
> their budgets, not Steve's advertising campaigns. And purchasing a
> PowerPC also entails purchasing SEPARATELY one of Steve's expensive
> displays.
You can run any display you like on a Mac. Just purchase the appropriate
cable.
> More and more Windows OEMS are providing a 17" flat-panel display in the
> purchase price, whereas in the past, they only provided 15" CRTs. So
> competition with Apple is no problem at all for them. When faced with
> the choice of purchasing a beautiful G5 and a $600 Dell, they will buy
> the $600 Dell every time, especially among IT executives, who are ALWAYS
> accountable to bean counters and others higher up in the Corporate
> structure. Even Joe Blow down the street is accountable to his "better
> half" when it comes to making large cash or credit purchases. She may
> think a G5 is beautiful, but her instinct for her family's financial
> survival will always win out over her aesthetic sense.
>
> I will admit that more and more Mac laptops are starting to gain market
> share in Corporations and homes, but ONLY because they are getting
> CHEAPER in addition to being elegant. For once, those IT execs can make
> purchase decisions according to their aesthetic senses, rather than
> being pushed around by bean-counters. But remember: This is because
> Apple is beginning to price its laptops within their budgetary requirements.
>
>
> >> That's one reason why Apple CANNOT let OSX run on any other
> >> Intel machine other than an Apple branded one.
>
> "True Believers" will ALWAYS have a reason why Apple "cannot" let OSX
> run on any other Intel machine simply because "True Believers" are their
> userbase, for the most part.
>
> But I bet you that Market conditions will ALWAYS outweigh the aesthetic
> senses of the vast majority of users out there, home users as well as
> corporate IT execs.
Of course it will, and rightly so. A sleek G5 has no place in a
corporate office, a cheap Dell x86 will do the job just as well.
But a cheap Dell x86 running OS X is a different proposition altogether.
That's worthy of serious consideration at Board level.
> It's simple: If Apple REALLY wants more market share, they are going to
> HAVE to make pricing decisions for their products which they are NOT
> inclined to make.
There's two separate but related issues, Windows on MacTel and OS X on
Wintel machinery. Apple has the opportunity to have two bites at the
marketing cherry, and they could do so before Vista arrives if they got
their finger out.
--
Peter
Peter Hayes
> In article <1h311ig.ofdx2w1ozjeh1N%not_i...@btinternet.com>,
> not_i...@btinternet.com (Peter Hayes) wrote:
> >
> > Even if you assume that 95% of Windows users won't even know MacTel
> > exists, the remaining 5% are potential Apple customers. That's a market
> > double what they have at present. It's also a market share looking for
> > quality machinery and/or hassle free computing.
>
> Yet those same people could buy Macs today and run VPC. Making Intel
> Macs doesn't change that situation.
It does. VPC is slow as molasses. I'd rather run a Wintel machine
remotely using VNC.
> > > The clone experiment showed that pretty clearly.
> >
> > The clone experiment was completely different.
>
> Not at all. Apple found that they didn't make enough money selling the
> software as they did selling the hardware.
Making OS X run on any x86 will obviously lose Apple some market share,
but balance that against the far wider hardware market for quality x86
machinery capable of running Windows and OS X.
--
Peter
Donald McDaniel
Why? I don't subscribe to that seemingly-elitist explanation. I am
sure there are MULTITUDES of IT execs out there who would LOVE to put
one of those G5s along with that great OS (allbeit one which is a little
more economically in line with their budgets) on every desktop, simply
because THEY probably have a deluxe G5 on THEIR desktops, but CAN'T put
them on all corporate desktops because of budgetary constraints. This
is not counting the financial advantages they would have as far as
day-to-day support costs for a PowerPC. Remember, even Microsoft
engineers are using G5s to design some of their WINDOWS software on.
But, instead, they make do with cheap Dells and expensive Windows OS
(along with the interminable support costs of those things which DRAIN
their budgets dry very fast), because Apple has simply priced their
machines beyond those IT exec's financial reach.
>
> But a cheap Dell x86 running OS X is a different proposition altogether.
> That's worthy of serious consideration at Board level.
My position all along.
In addition, I'm POSITIVE that those IT execs wouldn't mind paying a
small premium for the OS, since Windows licenses would still be MUCH
more expensive than OSX even if OSX were $179/lic instead of $129 ( and
in many cases even cheaper) For example, while Apple's set price for
OSX is $129/copy, you can order a copy from Amazon for at least $10/copy
cheaper than Apple's, even including free shipping.
>
>> It's simple: If Apple REALLY wants more market share, they are going to
>> HAVE to make pricing decisions for their products which they are NOT
>> inclined to make.
I still stand by this statement.
>
> There's two separate but related issues, Windows on MacTel and OS X on
> Wintel machinery. Apple has the opportunity to have two bites at the
> marketing cherry, and they could do so before Vista arrives if they got
> their finger out.
My sentiments exactly.
Donald
=====================================================================================
>
imout...@mac.com
> <imout...@mac.com> wrote:
>
> > Snit wrote:
> > > "imout...@mac.com" <imout...@mac.com> stated in post
> > > 1126901198....@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com on 9/16/05 1:06 PM:
> > >
> > > > Apple has announced they're getting out of the hardware industry as a
> > > > proprietary maker, and becoming an Intel OEM.
> > >
> > > Apple has announced they are moving to Intel, but where did you get the idea
> > > that they are no longer going to be making proprietary hardware?
> >
> > Phil Shiller said Macs would run Windows or words to that effect.
> >
> > If it runs Windows it's not proprietary.
>
> But the whole package is, if OS X won't run on a Wintel machine.
talking about hw here...
> There's actually two questions here. Will Intel OS X run on any x86
> machine, which is the topic here, and will Windows run on an MacTel
> machine?
>
> Making "yes" the answer to both questions gives Apple two bites at the
> Windows market, creating high quality hardware to run XP, Linux or OS X
> on,
yes, I think there's too much upside for Apple, in corporate and
education, to close this option off.
> and secondly, creating a high quality alternative to Windows for x86
> machine owners to switch to.
this is the $64 billion dollar question.
> OS X on Intel raises the possibility of running the likes of FCP on fast
Apple x86 hw will be just as fast as Dell, DIY.
> and affordable x86 hardware.
We'll need to see what the price premium is for Apple's x86 stuff. As
it stands now, only recently did Apple lose the price/performance crown
(couldn't buy a dual x86 box that was both faster and cheaper than a
top of the line G5) with their G5 dualies.
I'll be very surprised if Apple's pricing model looks more like Sun
rather than Dell or Gateway.
Actually I think they'll split the middle and come in to meet Sony's
pricing model exactly.
Sony has some reasonable deals on the desktop side and its laptops are
a bit pricey.
> Users can also switch OS without a massive
> hardware costs premium, and allied to this is the freedom from virus and
> associated exploits.
>
> This is the same scenario Linux offers the x86 owner, but Linux hasn't
> succeeded because the application base is limited to 'routine' products.
> OS X on Intel will offer a far wider software choice.
It's an interesting gamble. Once you become an x86 OEM opening up the
install DVD isn't that much of a big step.
This is perhaps what Be should have done, built an x86 BeBox, but their
geek cred recoiled in horror at the prospect of having to code to the
x86 ISA (even tho the Pentium Pro would have made a good basis going
forward).
Wayne Stuart
> Wayne Stuart wrote:
> > <imout...@mac.com> wrote:
> >
> > > > Right now, Apple makes most of its money on selling hardware
> > >
> > > this is, actually, incorrect. For the most recent quarter, Apple had a
> > > 30% margin on an average sale of $1324, for a gross profit of $400 per
> > > machine. With total unit sales of 1.2M, that's about $500M in profits
> > > from selling hardware, slightly less than 50% of its gross margin.
> >
> > Okay, assuming that's accurate, the only useful comparison would be
> > between Mac hardware sales, and retail OS X sales, i.e excluding iPod
> > stuff and other software sales.
>
> Nah, the halo effect works both ways. People running OS X are more
> likely to buy another iPod, or whatever device Apple has coming down
> the pike.
>
> And of course software sales are another line item linked to the
> installed base.
>
> I agree that hardware sales are Apple's /largest/ source of revenue
> ATM, but Apple can either be a big fish in a small pond or try to be a
> *bigger* fish in a bigger pond.
You don't think Apple are big? I guess that depends of whether you view
the Mac as a platform, or a make of PC. When viewed as the latter,
Apple is one of the biggest PC manufacturers in the world.
> I'm not seeing much value-add by *not* just licensing OS X, but I do
> agree it is somewhat risky.
*Too* risky!
> If Apple had a stronger suite of software the risk would be more
> justified, but iWork doesn't quite cut it.
>
> > > > and if the
> > > > punters want the OS X experience, they have to buy Apple hardware.
> > > > Whether you think that's fair or not, that's Apple's business model, and
> > > > against all the odds, it seems to work for them, as is evident that
> > > > Apple are still around when others have long since departed.
> > >
> > > I can agree with this. Problem is Apple is moving the Mac perilously
> > > close to bog-standard x86.
> > >
> > > Companies that do this, eg. SGI, Be, Amiga, haven't survived long.
> >
> > Regardless of what form their hardware takes, they're still going to
> > need to sell it. If the consumer doesn't have to buy it, then
> > some/many/most (delete as applicable) won't, thereby Apple loses another
> > hardware sale which they're going to need to counteract with many more
> > retail copies of OS X86.
>
> and/or software sales, like FCP...
>
> > > > If OS X was available for any generic x86 PC box of all makes and
> > > > configurations
> > >
> > > well, not ALL makes. Apple is going to require SSE2 for instance.
> >
> > Imagine the negative spin some could put on that when their particular
> > Frankenstein box is not supported. ;)
>
> Yeah, Be ran into this same buzzsaw. But I'm willing to wager every box
> that runs Vista well will also run OS X well. Hardware has become a lot
> more consolidated since the mid-90s.
But would a retail version of OS X86 take as long as Vista to produce?
;)
> > > > - a la Windows, ably demonstrating all the woes that go
> > > > hand in hand with this policy - to maintain the same or better
> > > > profitability, Apple are either going to have to limit its hardware
> > > > sales losses, or they're going to have to sell (as opposed to pirated
> > > > copies) a whole shitload of retail OS Xs to non-Apple hardware buyers to
> > > > counteract this loss in hardware sales. So are either of these
> > > > scenarios likely?
> > >
> > > I think it's a 3:1 ratio. If Apple can sell 3 $100 licenses for each
> > > lost hw sale, it is ahead of the game.
> >
> > And you think that's likely? I don't. I have no evidence for this,
> > other than my observations of Average Joe whose circles I move in. The
> > lure of following the herd is too strong to resist. OS X86 isn't going
> > to change that.
>
> Well, why would Apple lose a hw sale here? People following the herd
> aren't buying Macs anyway.
>
> Apple x86 hw not good enough to keep the faithful from trying their
> luck with a license?
I think George made the point here that in general, while the benefits
of Mac hardware is (and likely will be) appreciated - i.e. the
perception of quality and stylishness - when it comes to the crunch,
many would forsake these benefits if given the alternative choice of
something cheap, nasty, and beige instead.
I suspect this because I know I'd be one of them. I have an iMac G5,
and while I don't begrudge buying it, and I have no regret at buying
such a fantastic looking piece of engineering, I just know that if OS X
ran on any x86 hardware, I would slap something together much cheaper,
uglier, and less pleasing. I know it wouldn't be as stylish, and it may
very well be junk, and I know I may very well regret it when it goes
tits up, but I know I'd still take the risk. And if I'm anything like
typical, then Apple would lose lots and lots of hardware sales. And
that's not a slight on Apple hardware - It's just human nature.
Hey, perhaps a quick straw poll would help?
> > > Note that laptops are a major part of Apple's business, and it should
> > > still sell a lot of laptops even if it licenses since there isn't a BYO
> > > laptop market yet.
> >
> > Hmmm... yes, maybe. Or would they buy a cheaper Toshiba or Dell or
> > No-name-cheapo-slab instead? If your figures are correct, for every one
> > who decides they can forsake the pretty Mac laptop for a cheaper
> > supermarket special offer alternative, they need to find 2 additional OS
> > X86 buyers. Tall order.
>
> Out of 200M people buying computers this year? Don't think so.
And of those, the vast majority of them will continue to use what they
always have, giving little serious thought to any alternative, citing
the dozens of "reasons" they always have.
> > > > maybe play a few games. So what compelling reason do the masses have to
> > > > go out and hand over $130 to buy a second, less widely supported OS, go
> > > > though all the upheaval and uncertainly of such, when as far as they
> > > > know or care, it only does the same as what they already have, albeit
> > > > without the games?
> > >
> > > Nothing. This isn't about the "masses". It's about increasing Apple's
> > > marketshare above 5%.
> >
> > So if they're not going to appeal to the unwashed masses, where is this
> > market share coming from? Techie nerds 'experimenting' with OS X on
> > their DIY boxes is fine - at least those who didn't get a warez copy off
> > their mates - but if it came at the expense of hardware sales elsewhere
> > in their existing buyer demographic, how is that good for Apple's bottom
> > line?
>
> Depends to what extent Apple starts selling better shrinkwrap software,
> but there is a population outside the wintel herd and the mac faithful.
>
> Businesses sick of paying the Microsoft tax for crap and high TCO, or
> tired of waiting for Linus's ship to come in.
You put a lot of faith of these people. I don't. The world runs on
Windows, period.
> Schools looking to provide their students with the best software AND
> industry standard Windows training.
>
> (I hadn't thought of the educational angle for Apple's x86 move -- this
> is going to be BIG for Apple's momentum in education).
Ahh, now as a Brit, this is something I can't follow as our schools have
been pretty much 100% Windows since Acorn's education lock-out came to
an end, and I don't see that changing, no matter what Apple does.
> > > > Don't get we wrong, of course there'll be some more technically minded
> > > > souls who'll give it a try - the likes of which have probably already
> > > > dabbled with Linux, and the whom populate groups such as this - but
> > > > let's face it, that is a tiny tiny minority of people. Apple can't rely
> > > > of this few extra sales. Apple would need *huge* amounts of sales to
> > > > counteract the inevitable loss of hardware sales, and frankly, I just
> > > > don't see where these would come from.
> > >
> > > Tripling marketshare to 15% would be an immense win for Apple.
> >
> > Yet this 15% is not coming from the masses?
>
> Right. Apple has about 5% of the US market, more like 10% for portables
> AFAIK.
>
> The masses are cheap bastards and will just pirate OS X so they don't
> count.
>
> But Apple had a 15% market share back in 1993 and I think they can win
> these people back with a liberal licensing scheme.
That was then. The stranglehold has been tightened somewhat since.
Windows 3.1 was enough to send anyone scurrying towards the
alternatives, but right now, XP isn't quite awful enough to risk it.
So where is this significant market share increase coming from then?
* Unwashed masses? - Wouldn't know an OS from a toaster. Windows = OS,
Mac OS = erm... Windows?
* Techie types? - While many will undoubtedly pirate a copy to tinker
with, those that pay for it are a relatively small demographic.
* Business? - Set in their ways, better the devil you know, Mac OS,
too risky, stick to the standard, stick with Windows.
* Education? - The world has standardised on Windows; so will they.
There will be a portion of all the above that will break ranks, just as
some do now, but requiring huge increases in market share just to break
even? Call me a cynic, but I just don't see it.
--
This message was brought to you by Wayne Stuart - Have a nice day!
Snit
1h31uus.11xgo4h1j9kgg0N%m...@privacy.net on 9/17/05 2:10 PM:
> I suspect this because I know I'd be one of them. I have an iMac G5,
> and while I don't begrudge buying it, and I have no regret at buying
> such a fantastic looking piece of engineering, I just know that if OS X
> ran on any x86 hardware, I would slap something together much cheaper,
> uglier, and less pleasing. I know it wouldn't be as stylish, and it may
> very well be junk, and I know I may very well regret it when it goes
> tits up, but I know I'd still take the risk. And if I'm anything like
> typical, then Apple would lose lots and lots of hardware sales. And
> that's not a slight on Apple hardware - It's just human nature.
>
> Hey, perhaps a quick straw poll would help?
I used to use a PowerBase 200 clone - and regretted it horribly. Ran the
Mac OS, but it was built like a typical PC Clone... worst "Mac" I have ever
used... I learned my lesson there. Unless I had good reason to think that a
non-Apple "Mac" would be built as well as a Mac I would avoid them.
--
"If a million people believe a foolish thing, it is still a foolish thing."
- Anatole France
imout...@mac.com
Nice libel, but show where the numbers are wrong or just fuck off
already, Joe. You have yet to be right on any of your financial
counterassertions to me in this ng. (Or factual assertions, for that
matter.)
Apple had a $1.044B gross margin for 3Q05. Right?
Apple sold $1.565B worth of Macs that quarter. Right?
Apple had a gross margin of 29.7% for the quarter. Right?
Going with a 30% gross margin for the Macs, that's $470M in gross
profit from Macs.
Which is less than half of Apple's total gross profit, like I said,
making you, Joe, wrong, as usual. Right?
You are simply a windbag of opinionated noise devoid of information.
Right?
Apple would need a gross margin of 35% on its Macs to make "most" of
their profit from Mac hw sales. Right?
Assuming a 20% gross margin on iPods, 15% margin on iTMS sales, 40%
margin on peripherals, this would require Apple's gross margin on
software sales to be just 50%, well under MSFT's 80% company-wide gross
margin.
imout...@mac.com
> In article <1126912883.6...@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com>,
> > > > > In article <11ik17g...@news.supernews.com>,
> > > > > John <nos...@nospam.com> wrote:
> > > > >
> > 30% margin on an average sale of $1324, for a gross profit of $400 per
> > machine. With total unit sales of 1.2M, that's about $500M in profits
> > from selling hardware, slightly less than 50% of its gross margin.
>
> making things up.
>
> According to Apple's latest 10Q, software accounted for $345 M out of
> $3520 M total revenues.
>
> Since Apple's hardware gross margin was 29.7%,
not just hardware. The $3.52B sales basis is company-wide and includes
software.
> the gross margin on
> software would have to be well in excess of 100% for software to
> contribute greater margin than hardware.
"hardware" means Macs, since we were talking about hardware sales being
threatened by licensing.
(Obviously in this context iPod sales would not be threatened by
licensing.)
fwiw, here's my SWAG on Apple's profits by segment:
Mac hardware: 25% margin = $391.25M gross profit
iPods: 22% margin = $242.66M gross profit
iTMS: 15% margin = $36.15M gross profit
Peripherals: 40% margin = $106.4M gross profit
Software: 80% margin = $276M gross profit
So Mac hardware is their primary profit center but AAPL does not quite
get "most' of its profits from hardware, at least in the MRQ.
George Graves
m...@privacy.net (Wayne Stuart) wrote:
Wayne, I agree with everything you said here.
imout...@mac.com
> > I agree that hardware sales are Apple's /largest/ source of revenue
> > ATM, but Apple can either be a big fish in a small pond or try to be a
> > *bigger* fish in a bigger pond.
>
> You don't think Apple are big? I guess that depends of whether you view
> the Mac as a platform, or a make of PC. When viewed as the latter,
> Apple is one of the biggest PC manufacturers in the world.
I'm talking Mindshare.
> > I'm not seeing much value-add by *not* just licensing OS X, but I do
> > agree it is somewhat risky.
>
> *Too* risky!
Not if Apple had a good Office killer and vibrant development arm like
Micorsoft.
> > > And you think that's likely? I don't. I have no evidence for this,
> > > other than my observations of Average Joe whose circles I move in. The
> > > lure of following the herd is too strong to resist. OS X86 isn't going
> > > to change that.
> >
> > Well, why would Apple lose a hw sale here? People following the herd
> > aren't buying Macs anyway.
> >
> > Apple x86 hw not good enough to keep the faithful from trying their
> > luck with a license?
>
> I think George made the point here that in general, while the benefits
> of Mac hardware is (and likely will be) appreciated - i.e. the
> perception of quality and stylishness - when it comes to the crunch,
> many would forsake these benefits if given the alternative choice of
> something cheap, nasty, and beige instead.
Sure. People get what they want. Win-win, if Apple gets enough OS
license sales, software, or iGadget sales to offset the lost hardware
sales.
> I suspect this because I know I'd be one of them. I have an iMac G5,
> and while I don't begrudge buying it, and I have no regret at buying
> such a fantastic looking piece of engineering, I just know that if OS X
> ran on any x86 hardware, I would slap something together much cheaper,
> uglier, and less pleasing. I know it wouldn't be as stylish, and it may
> very well be junk, and I know I may very well regret it when it goes
> tits up, but I know I'd still take the risk. And if I'm anything like
> typical, then Apple would lose lots and lots of hardware sales. And
> that's not a slight on Apple hardware - It's just human nature.
Sure.
> Hey, perhaps a quick straw poll would help?
I'd love to build my own desktop from parts from Newegg.
But since something like 3/4ths of Apple's unit sales are in form
factors you CAN'T DIY (iBook, PBG4, mini, iMac) there's less exposure
here to lost sales than is apparent.
> > > Hmmm... yes, maybe. Or would they buy a cheaper Toshiba or Dell or
> > > No-name-cheapo-slab instead? If your figures are correct, for every one
> > > who decides they can forsake the pretty Mac laptop for a cheaper
> > > supermarket special offer alternative, they need to find 2 additional OS
> > > X86 buyers. Tall order.
> >
> > Out of 200M people buying computers this year? Don't think so.
>
> And of those, the vast majority of them will continue to use what they
> always have, giving little serious thought to any alternative, citing
> the dozens of "reasons" they always have.
Sure. But define "vast majority". 90%? That leaves 20 million looking
at Macs, 4x Apple's current market footprint. Even a 5% outside of the
"95% herd" would still triple Apple's existing marketshare.
> > Businesses sick of paying the Microsoft tax for crap and high TCO, or
> > tired of waiting for Linus's ship to come in.
>
> You put a lot of faith of these people. I don't. The world runs on
> Windows, period.
And for ever it shall be?
> > Schools looking to provide their students with the best software AND
> > industry standard Windows training.
> >
> > (I hadn't thought of the educational angle for Apple's x86 move -- this
> > is going to be BIG for Apple's momentum in education).
>
> Ahh, now as a Brit, this is something I can't follow as our schools have
> been pretty much 100% Windows since Acorn's education lock-out came to
> an end, and I don't see that changing, no matter what Apple does.
Selling a windows machine is better than not. Wonder how the M$
licensing will work...
> So where is this significant market share increase coming from then?
>
> * Unwashed masses? - Wouldn't know an OS from a toaster. Windows = OS,
> Mac OS = erm... Windows?
> * Techie types? - While many will undoubtedly pirate a copy to tinker
> with, those that pay for it are a relatively small demographic.
> * Business? - Set in their ways, better the devil you know, Mac OS,
> too risky, stick to the standard, stick with Windows.
> * Education? - The world has standardised on Windows; so will they.
>
> There will be a portion of all the above that will break ranks, just as
> some do now,
Right. Just 2% out of each of those categories is an immense win for
Apple, doubling their profits.
> but requiring huge increases in market share just to break
> even? Call me a cynic, but I just don't see it.
Apple no longer breaks out their desktop sales, but they've been in
terminal decline. Even if Apple started selling licenses I think plenty
of people will still buy minis, iBooks, Powerbooks and iMacs, so the
amount of marketshare gain required for Apple to break even isn't that
much.
If Apple loses HALF their unit sales, that's about $1B in lost profit
for the year, but at $100/pop that's 10M license sales, 5% of the
larger market.
Without a strong software arm that Microsoft enjoys, this is indeed
risky to shoot for. Selling a creditable office suite would be a
required first step before I would pull the trigger on licensing.
George Graves
not_i...@btinternet.com (Peter Hayes) wrote:
I'm saying that if OSX Intel will run on any Intel-based PC, and you
have 3.6 Ghz Dell for $1500, and a 3.6 GHz Mac for $3000, most people
would buy the Dell and that would be one less box Apple would sell.
> Apple can enter that market and compete quite happily on the basis of
> quality hardware and stylish design. Just look at the insides of a dual
> 2.75GHz G5 to see a product design that Windows users would die for.
Yes, I know and I agree, its a very nice industrial design and nicely
finished as well. I just don't think that this is all that important to
most computer buyers. Most of us pay what Apple asks because (a) that's
the cost of owning a Mac, and (b) many of us support Apple because, in
the long run, its in our best interest for Apple to remain successful. I
don't think that would be true of most users, especially new ones to the
fold. I appreciated that my G5 box is a thing of beauty and a
marvelously designed and executed package. But I have to weigh that
against the OS. The OS is much more important than the hardware. If it
will run with the same or better performance on a non-Apple branded
Winbox than it will on a beautifully designed and executed Apple box,
MOST people will go the cheaper route. I don't think that I'm one of
them (reason 'b' is still very important to me), but when push comes to
shove, who knows?
>
> > That's one reason why Apple CANNOT let OSX run on any other
> > Intel machine other than an Apple branded one.
>
> There'll be an HCL, just as there is with Windows 2000 or Linux.
Do you mean Hardware Comprehensive Listing? Not being a Windows or a
Linux follower, I had to look HCL up as I have to admit to not having
had a clue as to what it could mean.
Travelinman
not_i...@btinternet.com (Peter Hayes) wrote:
Irrelevant.
If someone wants to run OS X, they can buy a Mac - and then later
install Windows if they don't like OS X.
I doubt if having several sources is going to make those numbers large
enough to justify the loss of revenue.
Travelinman
imout...@mac.com wrote:
You made numbers up. Big deal.
But even if your numbers are correct, Apple would STILL Need to sell
many millions of copies of OS X to break even.