Slashdot Mirror
Is Piracy the Pathway to Apple Profit?
An anonymous reader writes "Over at Apple Matters Chris Seibold writes an interesting piece hypothesizing that Apple's strategy may bank on people pirating OS X for their Intel boxes."
← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)
Worked for MS :) /flame on
"Old man yells at systemd"
Since TFA seems to be down already, I assume it is talking about allowing the release of Tiger for Intel to propogate on BitTorrent networks. Perhaps Apple is allowing for this to give curious Windows users a taste of OS X and it's suite of apps, but this certainly would not continue when the final version is released.
Apple could not easily survive as a software company. Apple has been a hardware company for it's duration. Remember back in 1997, when Apple almost died? Steve Jobs had to kill the clones because Apple could not compete with the cheap hardware. Arguably, Apple is in a much stronger position to sell software due to it's larger user base, better public image, etc., but I don't think Apple would profit as much.
Apple is a hardware company that might be hoping that some users download the torrent, fall in love with OS X, and buy an Intel Mac in a year. Or maybe this whole thing is overzealous speculation on the part of imaginative bloggers. Either way, Apple will remain a hardware company and provide an integrated computing solution that is clean, solid, and attractive.
"Also Apple is at heart a hardware company."
Wrong. From the lips of Steve Jobs himself: "The heart of Apple is OSX."
How can you call Apple a hardware company? Because they put everything in a well designed box? All the components are 3rd party... Apple doesn't make processors, Apple doesn't make memory, Apple doesn't make harddrives or video cards or sound cards. They buy them from hardware companies, put them in a shiny box and then run *their software* on it.
How is Apple going to use the DRM features of a chip I do not have to prevent me from installing OSX on my P4? Am I missing something?
;-)
There's a couple of methods they could use:
1. Have Mac OS X check for the presence of an authorization chip ala NES Carts. If no chip is found, refuse to install.
2. Make the OS rely on OpenBoot features. Since PCs have a BIOS instead it would be difficult (if not impossible) to install OS X without swapping out your BIOS.
3. Replace all the crappy PC hardware (e.g. chained interrupt controllers, A20 gate, etc.) and replace it with something more sensible. OS X would then only run on a machine with sensible hardware.
4. All of the above.
Javascript + Nintendo DSi = DSiCade
My guess, if I had to put money on it, would be:
- It'll be "legacy free", that is, no PS/2 or serial ports. It will have USB High Speed, IDE, and maybe Firewire, just like their current line up.
- They'll do several single board machines without PCI, similar to the motherboard in a PC laptop in hardware spec.
- The architecture will essentially be that of a PC clone. This'll ensure they can use off-the-shelf components for lower cost machines.
- They'll probably use EFI instead of BIOS.
For reasons why, see the JE linked to in my .sig.
There are a lot of comments that have come out of Apple, together with actual actions, that demonstrate where this is heading. If they wanted to produce a non-standard machine that just happened to have an Intel CPU in it, they wouldn't be making a lot of the decisions they're making. There'd be no reason to abandon Open Firmware. There'd be no reason to change the disk partition format. There'd be comments from Apple to the effect Windows is unlikely to run. What you'll have in a year will be a machine that may well run many industry standard PC operating systems out of the box.
You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
Pathway to Apple Profit?
Apple needs no pathway to profit - it is profitable as a hardware company. They need software only as a selling point for their hardware. Releasing MacOS X compatible with standard non-brand PC's would undermine their hardware sales - and it would be a pathway to ginormous losses like they had in 1997 and 1998, when they allowed cloning. They are profitable since then precisely because Jobs killed clones. Do you seriously believe he did it only to reintroduce Mac cloning ten years later?
Apple is also a company used to having their software run on a pre-determined combination of hardware and software. I suspect these dev kits are no exception. Even if it somehow leaks out, I highly doubt it will work on any 'ol wintel PC simply due to a lack of drivers.
www.lonseidman.com
The RIAA knows this, but they are deliberately ignoring it because they are more concerned with control of the product before profitability. They have the data which shows that music sharing increases sales. But for them the issue is about control of the distribution, so they can be the arbiters of who's "hot" and who's not. They have many artists' careers to control and profit from. Surrendering that control renders them effectively useless, so they will spend millions prosecuting 14 year olds to intimidate people away from making their own decisions about what music they want.
Apple (and Microsoft) basically have one product they're responsible for, and they want that product to succeed both PR-wise and financially, so they'll take advantage of things like "quality control" and "customer preferences" .. you know, those evil capitalist things that actually involves paying attention to the customer.
It's not a lie. It's the truth with lossy compression.
Without those apps, OS X-x86-Lite would likely suffer the same fate as those who "tried" RedHat only to reinstall their orginal Windows because it wouldn't do anything for them.
This is a boring sig
Although there is a MacOSX developer-version that will run on a particular Macintosh "P.C.," it may not run on your regular vanilla P.C.
But what's worse is that it might run on vanilla P.C., but badly. I can see it now: punks downloading Mac OSX "for free" and having it either crash, or have Quartz disabled, or otherwise run funky. Then the fallout on many a P.C. site/blog will be all about how OSX is crap and can't run well on a Dell.
In short, this could turn out to be bad publicity, if there is such a thing.
Up, Up, Down, Down, Left, Right, Left, Right, B, A, START
Apple is also a hardware company, they make most of their money by selling the only computers that can run the software that they sell (by my estimates Apple currently owns, oh, about 100% of the Macintosh market).
Open-source OS X and you not only lose your OS Revenues, you lose the hardware monopoly.
What's left? iPods and iTunes downloads? Hard to afford the Steve's Gulfstream on that revenue.
Somehow, I doubt that OSX will be available on ordinary PCs. Ther is SUCH a variety of PC hardware, this would be unlikely.
Gee, you have a nVidia card? OSX only supports ATI.
Whoops. nForce chipset. Sorry.
Looks like your Athlon 64 does not support SSE3. Now, you software will crash for your amusement. Enjoy!
It is not that Apple could NOT support all of those devices. It is just that Apple is not likely to put the work into it, because they want people to buy THEIR hardware. I suppose that you MIGHT be able to build a PC made just to run OSX (using the components that have drivers), but that would have to be deliberate. Or, you could get lucky and have just the right hardware, but that would be unlikely.
Oh, one more thing. Don't expect 3rd party drivers for mobos. If it is impossible to buy OSX by itself, no mobo manufacturer will support it. Video cards MIGHT be another story. I can imagine nVidia and ATI writing their own Mac drivers if this x86 thing takes off.
Of course, this is just my opinion. I could be VERY wrong about this whole thing.
"-1 Troll" is the apparently the same as "-1 I disagree with you."
The bundled apps like iPhoto, iDVD, iCal or iTunes make the system useful, out of the box, to your average Soccer Mom or Nascar Dad.
Funny - Don't they call that "anticompetitive behavior" when Microsoft does it?
Yes, when a convicted monopolist bundles software as a tactict to further consolidate their hold on an industry, it is called "anticompetitive".
If you aren't a monopoly, you can bundle 'till the cows come home.
That's because Aple doesn't command the large share of the market. If Apple had 90%+ of the market, then it would be anit-competative behaviour. Like it or not, the rules change when you become the dominant market force. It was the same for IBM in the 60's and AT&T in the 70's
Atlas stands on the earth and carries the celestial sphere on his shoulders.
If we take the experience with the IBM PCs in the 80's as our template I think it is easy to see that cloning and piracy don't contribute to the success of individual hardware companies.
IBM owned the PC market up until the late 80s but the evolution of cloned hardware destroyed their business. It was Microsoft who made their fortune from cloned hardware not IBM. Microsoft may have benefited from software piracy but they held a unique position of being able to get reliably paid for their products by large institutions like OEMs, corporations and government entities. Pirated copies of their software didn't effect their principle revenue streams because MS didn't have a reliable mechanism for getting people who did pirate to pay in the first place.
I don't see Apple benefiting from clones (de facto or formal) or pirated software. Cloned hardware would cannibalize Apple's own sales. Clones would not functions as well as real Macs which would damage the brand. Trying to recoup by selling the OS and other software like iLife would require serialization and all the headaches that entails in addition to support issues.
Perhaps Apple could gain an edge by capturing the small but influential "hacker" market. People who enjoy futzing with Linux might be willing to suffer the headaches of running MacOS X on unsupported hardware. Beyond that, however, I don't see much advantage.
The same rationalization is floated at all the warez and P2P sites, and it just doesn't hold water. The network effect may be real (up-front loss in sales yields free advertising and subsequent monetary transaction), but it is neither as large or as desirable as they make it out to be. First, if you can download game ABC from the network, play through it in 2 weeks for free, what incentive do you ever have to buy it down the road? What is the point of letting 100,000 people get your game for free only to convert 1,000 of them -- when it's more likely that 5,000 would have forked over the cash had it not been so easy to Google or torrent? Productivity and utility software is a little harder, because its long life usually means that there are several upgrades/updates that invalidate a pirated code, and give someone another chance to "go straight", but there are no hard statistics either way. No, the "lost sales" never quite jive with the numbers the BSA always publishes, but you have to be naive to think that warezed software is anywhere close to effective in getting users to fork over money.
Next, the software industry does not rely on piracy to sell product -- the argument is crap. There are plenty of ways to leverage the network effect without shooting themselves in the foot: time or feature limited demos, shareware, light versions, free framework/pay-for plugins, competitive upgrades, bundling, educational discounts, site licenses, support contracts, etc. etc. These companies desperately want to put their software in front of you, they want you to learn it, love it, advocate it, but they aren't dumb enough to give you the keys to the store without something in return. Adobe Photoshop will still be king even if it wasn't splashed over all the P2P networks, because it's a professional tool and businesses will still fork over the big money to buy it -- regardless of whether Jimmy warezed it or got the $50 version at the campus bookstore. Jimmy isn't the market, and he's deluding himself if he thinks he's doing Adobe a favor.
No, Apple isn't going to rely on warezed versions of the MacOS to build marketshare -- they already have iPods, iTunes, pretty iMacs, and plenty of rabid press to remind people how user-friendly the Mac is. They will produce consumer-friendly x86 iMacs, they will continue to make great laptops, and they will continue to push the MacOS against Longhorn. They will probably license the MacOS to bundle with other x86 computers (HP, Sony) to get even more people on board (but not for free).
Now, the technical hurdles involved in tying the hardware to the OS and vice versa are pretty large. In the end, Apple will be unable to stop people from running Windows on their Mac-branded hardware (Apple still gets their hardware cut) or from running the MacOS on their commodity hardware (Apple still gets a software cut) -- Darwin and Windows hackers will see to it. It doesn't mean they will embrace it, let alone turn a blind eye to piracy as a way to build marketshare, but they will pick their battles and make sure to grab a little revenue where they can. Ideally, when Longhorn ships, people will go to CompUSA or Fry's, and see it sitting next to Tiger on the shelf -- they will think back over all the virus/trojan/worm hassles they've had with Windows, and then decide how to spend their $129. Now thatis the network effect in action.
Think about iTunes -- it's a pretty good solution that makes it easy to find, try, and buy cheap music. Apple has put up reasonable barriers so that they can still get the music industry on board without alienating users. You can certainly buy an album on the cheap, burn it, and give it to your friends or post it to P2P -- but how many people actually do that? It's not worth the hassle for moderate quality music. Sure, the freedom is there to reassure users, but Apple sticks to the corporate line that piracy is bad and easy/cheap is good. Now, the MP3 market may have been forged by P2P, but Apple has done a pretty good job making it profitable without giving away the keys to the store.
Matt Slot / Bitwise Operator / Ambrosia Software, Inc.
I do remember BeOS R5 PE. I installed it on my PowerComputing 150. The problem with their business model wasn't that they gave away a version for free. I think the problem was that there weren't a lot of compelling applications available for BeOS. It was way cool. It did real multitasking-- that was the big 'gee-whiz' for me.
This situation with Apple is different. They've already achieved a critical mass of applications for MacOS X. If people were to install a free version, they'd recognize the credibility of the OS in day-to-day use. BeOS just didn't get over that hurdle.
Seth
$5 / month hosted VPS on linux = awesome!
Now, of course, MACs are quite good, but back in the day their hardware was always screwing up for seemingly random reasons. It made a lot of people curse Apple to the ends of the Earth.
So, if you try this as a company, make sure your product doesn't suck.
Similar to the upcoming US election results