-
A Thought – OSX License
Just seen all the is there is there not going to be a new tower – I think it could be a mini mac on steroids but what if; JUST if;
Apple opened up the OSX to play on any computer …. that means their interface can be on ever PC – every Linux and then no need for Mac Hardware but sell a ZILLION OSX disks, now I know Steve would be rolling in his grave but can you imagine 10.8 on a DELL or HP power horse – FCPX would get new traction and the units sold would defiantly outweigh the Hardware – of course there is a License fee in there as well – BUT hell – anything is possible !!!! btw thy are claiming to be a Post PC company ….
RIP Steve – sorry for the rude shock
Deliver Commercials is a Company that helps explain to you how to get Commercials exported the first time
@DeliverComms
-
15 Replies
-
That strategy sounds just like Steve Ballmer’s Poo Poo of the iPhone when it was released. Steve was going to “get Rich” selling a zillion installations of Mobile Windows as opposed to Apples dumb idea of getting $600/phone.
Gee…. how did that work out?
-
[Phil Hoppes] “That strategy sounds just like Steve Ballmer’s Poo Poo of the iPhone when it was released. Steve was going to “get Rich” selling a zillion installations of Mobile Windows as opposed to Apples dumb idea of getting $600/phone. Gee…. how did that work out?”
Well, licensing an OS worked out fantastically the first time Microsoft tried it.
Correspondingly, Apple’s insistence on selling complete closed systems worked fabulously in the 1970s and early 1980s, but nearly killed the company by the 1990s.
Open systems and closed systems each have advantages, and so the pendulum swings back and forth.
That said, I agree with Andy: licensing may be very good for us, but it seems an unlikely path for Apple.
Walter Soyka
Principal & Designer at Keen Live
Motion Graphics, Widescreen Events, Presentation Design, and Consulting
RenderBreak Blog – What I’m thinking when my workstation’s thinking
Creative Cow Forum Host: Live & Stage Events -
[Walter Soyka] “Well, licensing an OS worked out fantastically the first time Microsoft tried it. “
And it might have worked again if Windows Phone 7 had been ready for market in 2008 instead of 2010. But it wasn’t, and Android ate its lunch. But Microsoft makes money either way, so their bottom line isn’t hurting for now.
Best,
Andy -
[Andrew Richards] ” their bottom line isn’t hurting for now.”
Yes, but their overall performance both in new products (none) and market share along with their valuation has been nothing short of abysmal. I like uSoft but they hardly innovate and certainly don’t lead, they are really “just there” anymore. Just existing simply because of inertia is a very bad place to be, especially in high tech. Darn near killed IBM and it did kill a host of others.
Apple has relatively little (in proportion to their current overall revenue and revenue mix) to gain and actually a lot to loose (major hardware sales to just who you want them to license their OS too, Dell and HP). It would be suicide. Nice for you, very, very bad for Apple.
-
[Phil Hoppes] “Yes, but their overall performance both in new products (none) and market share along with their valuation has been nothing short of abysmal. I like uSoft but they hardly innovate and certainly don’t lead, they are really “just there” anymore. Just existing simply because of inertia is a very bad place to be, especially in high tech. Darn near killed IBM and it did kill a host of others.”
That’s why I said “for now”. Microsoft needs to be able to compete with the iPad in order to avoid a decline like RIM has seen the past 5 years. They were caught flatfooted by the iPhone and Android, and they seem determined with Windows 8 to stay relevant in the post-PC era (though they insist tablets are still just PCs of another shape)
Best,
Andy -
I would agree. They are in a very bad position. I’m of the camp that Ballmer has to go. That company is in dire need of some new leadership blood and new focus and direction. The tablet market is already getting very shaken up with Androids, Kindle’s, Nook’s, etc. In one sense it may be too late already. Take any product and any market and there are slew’s of studies that the first to the market, as long as the product is good and well sustained will always garner the most market share and is incredibly difficult to unseat. Those very late (Microsoft) to the market often never make it at all. It remains to be seen how well the Win8/Nokia products will fair as well as Win8 tablets. We all shall see.
-
I remember when Steve came back years ago, when he axed the clones, he said that Apple makes $50 off each clone, and roughly $500 off each Macintosh. Apple was competing with the clones. The clones would have to increase installs by more than tenfold to break even. So, assuming the numbers are at least sorta similar now, I don’t see how this would work. Since they now are actually 10%+ of all computer sales, increasing their sales x10 would mean they basically have ALL the computer sales. Obviously that’s not going to happen. Sure there are a ton of variables to consider, like software sales of Apple products like FCP X. But just looking at the percentage of profits for hardware vs software can probably tell them how much software the likely OSX user is going to buy, and how much that offsets the hardware profit lost by licensing. I’m guessing the numbers don’t come anywhere close to panning out, and licensing would due another hassle due to different hardware it would have to run on and the issues there. It’s nothing better than a fall back plan. I’m pretty sure it has been an option for the last 10 years.
-
[Walter Soyka] “Correspondingly, Apple’s insistence on selling complete closed systems worked fabulously in the 1970s and early 1980s, but nearly killed the company by the 1990s.”
Apple started licensing their OS in the 90’s and that’s typically seen as one of their bigger misfires of that era. When Jobs came back one of the first things he did was kill the clones.-Andrew
2.9 GHz 8-core (4,1), FCP 7.0.3, 10.6.6
Blackmagic Multibridge Eclipse (7.9.5) -
[Andrew Kimery] “Apple started licensing their OS in the 90’s and that’s typically seen as one of their bigger misfires of that era. When Jobs came back one of the first things he did was kill the clones.”
No disagreement from me there — but I’d point out that Apple started licensing MacOS in 1995 as an attempt to enlarge their market share, because they were getting absolutely clobbered by the more open Wintel IBM-compatible PC systems of the day.
Just as Reese’s Peanut Butter Cups find that chocolate and peanut butter are better together, so it goes for Apple with hardware and software.
My original point was both closed systems and open systems have seen wild growth and incredible success at various points in computing’s short history, and that one is not inherently superior to the other. They have different strengths and weaknesses.
Walter Soyka
Principal & Designer at Keen Live
Motion Graphics, Widescreen Events, Presentation Design, and Consulting
RenderBreak Blog – What I’m thinking when my workstation’s thinking
Creative Cow Forum Host: Live & Stage Events
Reply to this Discussion! Login or Sign Up