Apple's Colossal Disappointment?

Mudzy writes "Michael Roberson, founder of Linspire, has an article at The TechZone talking about Apple's 'Colossal Disappointment' for not porting Mac OS X to PC after they announced the move to Intel processors. He discuss why this could be a mistake." From the article: "Instead of a brilliant strategic maneuver, it's a step necessitated by IBM's inability to keep pace with Intel. It seems Apple was tired of losing the gigahertz competition to the PC world. Apple had been promising faster computers for some time and had not been able to deliver them. In addition, they were frustrated at IBM's inability to produce a fast low-powered chip for laptops."

Comments

Apple is in catbird seat

[gsfprez]

there is nothing at all stopping apple from doing exactly what this guy says...

When the conditions are most ripe...
when Apple is ready to face that challenge from a support perspective...
when Microsoft becomes more loathed with the release of Vista which will have 8,000 viruses out for it BEFORE its released...

you don't walk into a saloon and just start shooting up the place even if you're packing a big-ass gun. You wait to size up the situation, you make sure that you're transition to Intel is complete and solid, and you make your move when you want to.

Hell, just that very THREAT should be enough to keep Microsoft awake, pissing their pants at night. That's what the US military did to the Iraqi's the first Gulf War... we kept them awake for a whole 36 hours waiting for them to be so tired of staying awake, anticipating the strike that we did far more damage than if we had attacked at zero hour.

Don't be stupid and confuse shrewd business timing tactics for making bad decisions. This linspire guy has his head shoved up his ass if he thinks Jobs isn't interested in beating the stuffing out of Microsoft.

old news, but interesting facts

[aixou]

This is actually old news, as documented in Michael's Minute.

I'm sure Michael is bluffing. He knows that if Apple allowed OS X to run on commodity hardware Linspire's potential market would be marginalized even further... it could be devastating to the Linux desktop push. Why would he want such competition from Apple?

It's rather curious that a week after that, Michael stepped down from CEO of Linspire (check the Michael's Minute entitled "What's Our Purpose in Life") Cause-and-effect? Maybe. Correlation? Definitely.

Michael's not dumb. He feigned disappointment at the Apple on Intel announcement, but my guess is that it was a carefully orchestrated bluff to allow him to distance himself from Linspire in the weeks after.
Any company investing in LOTD with the hopes of profitability had better hope to god that Apple does not allow OS X to run on commodity hardware. It's just common sense.

Article down already, but...

[Anonymous Coward]

Okay, let's look at this:

1) Robertson criticizes Apple for not porting OS X to work on stock PCs.

2) Robertson happens to be the head of a company competing for those very desktops.

Why would he really want Apple to step into the market he himself is trying to gain market share in? Maybe, just maybe, he's riding on Apple's popularity as an opportunity to promote his own solutions?

Nah. That's just crazy. :)

(On a side note, I saw him give a presentation once, and before he started the presentation he asked how many people owned/used iPods. Only a few hands went up. Then, during his presentation where he spoke about their "LTunes" and their iTMS clone, he criticized iPod for being hard to use, saying thigns like "how do you turn this thing off? This thing is hard to use. We practiced turning it on, but we didn't practice turning it off..." I'm sorry, he's either so brain-dead he can't use a consumer electronics device with clearly labeled play and stop buttons on it, or he's playing to the ignorance of the crowd. The former makes him stupid, the latter makes him dishonest. And I don't think he's THAT stupid. ;-)

Re:Apple isn't stupid

[ScrewMaster]

I'm still waiting for Sony to make a similar decision: are they a consumer electronics manufacturer or a media company?

Re:Follow Microsoft

[happyemoticon]

Microsoft's profits come from the huge number of windows sold

Most copies of Windows come with a brand new computer. Dell probably pays less than $25 a pop for these, which is not a ton of revenue. When you factor in the costs of R&D, it's a shitty profit margin. They make their big bucks from applications like Office.

wouldn't you think that this would also work for apple

No, it really wouldn't. Microsoft only works because they're a monopoly. If Apple were to start behaving like a monopoly with 15% market share, they would die.

Hasn't this been done to death?

[Durandal64]

Let's say Apple releases OS X x86 for generic x86 hardware. It's a box right next to Windows XP. What happens?

• Some people buy it. Quite a few people who buy it find out that OS X doesn't support their particular hardware configuration. These people each tell 10 other people that OS X sucks because they'd have had to upgrade their hardware to use it. OS X gets bad word-of-mouth and quickly dies.
  
  After all, Apple have significantly less resources to test OS X with the wide range of x86 hardware out there than Microsoft does, and even Microsoft can't get it right half the time. If they were to dedicate the required time and energy to making sure it worked on as many configurations as reasonable, OS X for x86 would put Longhorn to shame in the "RSN" department with all the delays it'd experience.
• Say Apple, by some miracle, manages to support as many configurations as Windows does (or close enough). What then? Microsoft undercuts the shit out of them, that's what. OEM's like Dell would get huge discounts as long as they agreed not to sell OS X on any of their boxes. The worst thing that happens to Microsoft is they get another DoJ slap on the wrist, but in the end they've eliminated the most viable competitor to come along in the last decade. Even if that's not the exact method they use, rest assured, they'll find some way to pummel Apple out of existence. That $40 billion warchest would see to that.
• Say the DoJ actually grows a shrivel of integrity and stops Microsoft before they can obliterate Apple completely. Apple has a great OS that runs on a wide range of commercially available hardware and costs only $129. Their hardware sales dry up, and they're forced to rely on OS X revenue, iTunes Music Store revenue (barely turns a profit) and iPods (how much longer till market saturation?). Not a great position to be in. Profits plummet, investors lose confidence and Apple's stock sinks.

This is why geeks aren't in charge of companies. If I were to speculate, I'd say this is Apple's strategy.

1. Release Intel-based boxes and become a sort of "testbed" for new Intel technology. Since Apple control their hardware, they can afford to adopt things like EFI before anyone else. The new boxes are faster, cheaper and Apple gets all the latest and greatest stuff as soon as Intel can deliver. Geeks complain about Apple locking people into their hardware.
2. Being sick of Windows, people buy these new, cheaper Macs with assurances that they can always install Windows if they aren't satisfied with the experience. Geeks complain more and warn of the Coming of the Cracked Mac OS X x86 Torrent. This holy torrent will, they claim, herald an end to Apple's hardware lock-in, since everyone will now simply buy cheap PCs and install The Holy Cracked Mac OS X on them. They refuse to acknowledge that normal people don't want to build their own PCs and will never know The Holy Cracked Mac OS X even exists.
3. The Holy Cracked OS X arrives. Geeks begin pirating OS X. Normal people don't notice and continue buying Apple's hardware.
4. Longhorn comes out, no longer a distant Vista. Leopard is there to meet it. Apple trashes Windows Vista for sucking. Microsoft ignores Apple.
5. OS X's popularity grows, but the price of Apple's hardware still puts some people off. Apple, having been working in secret, licenses OEMs a version of Mac OS X that installs on their machines. Dell and HP begin selling machines with OS X on them. (Apple refuses to be associated with eMachines and Gateway. Steve may or may not say they suck at a keynote address.)
6. Geeks complain more about how they can't get a supported version of OS X for their $300 custom PCs. Normal people remain unaware.
7. This stupid "colossal disappointment" crap fades from memory.
8. The entertainment industry begins imposing absurd DRM restrictions on everything up to and including what pixels are displayed on your screen. OS X does not adopt these ridiculous restrictions and becomes even more popular as th

Re:Hasn't this been done to death?

[mstone]

There's another path leading out from roadmap item #1:

Apple becomes the company that creates markets for all the Really Cool Stuff that will make its way into the commodity PC market two or three years later, once sufficient consumer demand exists. Apple gets first-mover advantage on all that tech, which means:

2a. Apple's branding of the technology goes into the cultural mindset. Face it, the term 'podcasting' is a kick in the balls for the marketing department of any other portable-audio-device vendor.

3a. Apple sticks to the "limited, 'overpriced' hardware" model, but becomes known as the platform to own if you really want to be on the cutting edge. Apple's market share grows 'modestly' to cover the 20% of the market that generates 80% of the profit.

4a. Apple gets a tasty new line of hardware design, middleware, and brand licensing once Microsoft, Dell, et al decide enough of a market exists to warrant adopting the new technologies.

5a. Apple develops a good relationship with Intel's R&D group, meaning some of Intel's resources get devoted to creating Apple's Next Big Thing, which can then be turned around and licensed to the PC market once sufficient consumer demand exists.

It isn't unreasonable to think that Apple could get $15-25 in technology and brand licensing for every Windows box sold, without ever having to license OS X itself. And the direct revenue from Apple's own version of the technologies, the tighter integration with Intel's R&D wing, the massive branding potential, and the increased market share wouldn't hurt either.

We geeks need to realize that an OS isn't a single, monolithic product. It's a whole package of things, and Apple can make a whole ton of money licensing individual items from the package without ever licensing the whole 'OS' package itself.

Re:Apple isn't stupid

[NeedleSurfer]

No offense but Apple of all company can be pretty stupid sometimes... They introduced/created/managed some of the greatest innovation this industry has ever seen in ways that never got them where they should be.

They are exceptionnal engineers and very lousy businessman, let's hope they try to change in the near future...

Re:Windows vs. Mac increasingly less relevant

[fermion]

The online perspective is interesting. Combined with the reduction in fundemental differences between CPU models, it really leads to a world it which it matters less what you computer is running, and more how the computer communicates.

So, the Intel switch may not create a big advantage for Apple, and i don't think it will. But what is happening is MS is still promoting IE as the browser for the internet, but increasingly integrating it with the OS to the point that the latest browser is only going to exist on the latest OS. Therefore if developers continue to design for IE, which is easier to design for becuase IE is actually a rather specilized application front end, and only incidently a web browser, then we are all going to be forced to use windows.

And this may be where the wisdom of Apple's switch emerges. We must migrate web designers from the IE state of mind to the more open standards state of mind. This is going to require some education and experience as IE design is trivial compared to what google and the others do. One safe way to do this may be for Apple to supply machines in which designers can run Windows and Mac OS and Linux and whatever. A kind of crutch.

There a still a number of IE sites out there, and they may continue to use latest features. All these people who want to stick with 2000 or XP are going to be disappointed when the content won't run becuase everyone is designing for vista.

The Argument is Backwards: We need windows on macs

[TempusMagus]

The thing we need to be watching is not if Apple ports OSX to work on non-Apple hardware. We need to be watching how well the intel macs run Windows. If Apple does this - they win. Seriously, they win. Why? Every single person I know who has a mac and a windows machine ends up using OS X at every turn except when they have to use a Windows box. I have a PC and a Mac and I only use the mac for games and 3dsmax. If you can run windows dual booting on a powerbook you will see a corporate invasion of macs like nothing you've ever seen. Then, over time, you'll slowly see more and more native support of OS X apps while people look for any excuse to stop booting into windows.

Re:Apple isn't stupid

[Kadin2048]

I think you hit the nail on the head.

What makes people buy Apple is not their software. It's not their hardware (with the exception of the iPod, perhaps). It's certainly not their price or perceived value.

What Apple survives on is two things: 1) the semi-mythical and nearly impossible to quantify 'coolness' factor, and 2) the user experience. People buy Macs because they're easy to use (or at least they have a wide perception as being easy to use, which in marketing is virtually the same thing) and powerful. It's the whole "it just works" philosophy, as cliched as that might sound.

Apple can maintain it's edge in user experience because they have very tight hardware/software integration. By monopolizing the hardware which their OS will run on, they can limit the number of possible system configurations and then test the hell out of them, build drivers into the OS, etc. A lot of Mac users don't even know what a device driver is! (I'm pretty sure actually if I asked for a device driver to some friends of mine they'd ask whether I wanted the flat kind or the Philips-head kind.)

If Apple sold the Mac OS for distribution on commodity x86 hardware, suddenly a lot of their advantage would disappear. You'd instantly go from a few dozen out-of-the-box configurations to thousands or millions, and have loads of incompatible hardware that people would expect to be able to use.

Also, they'd have to start playing hardball about software licensing, which they've never done and would probably alienate a lot of users, and do a lot of damage to their "nice guy" image. A lot of PC users are surprised to know that there is no serialization during the Mac OS install process. None at all. If you have an Apple computer and an install CD, you can put the system on it. There's obviously quite a bit of piracy that goes on (and always has) but I assume Apple just doesn't bother because they realize even the pirates have paid them some money for the hardware they're installing the stolen system on. And the progress of operating systems requires you to buy new hardware periodically anyway, so you're always going to cough up every few years. They can afford to be nice.

If Apple started selling the software by itself, I have no doubt (given their performance with iTMS) that they would come out with some pretty robust 'activation' scheme. This to me would be obnoxious: it's one of the things I've always enjoyed feeling above, as a Mac and Free Software user.

Apple had their experiment with commodity hardware back in the clone days (anyone remember CHRP?), and Jobs pulled the plug. I don't think they'll go back there again. The question which interests me most today is, when Apple releases their first x86 version of Mac OS X for actual Apple/Intel boxes, how hard will they try to keep hackers from moving it to commodity hardware just for hobby and experimental purposes.

Re:Apple isn't stupid

[Sockninja]

Ah... so beautiful. Ive never met a single Windows user whos computer wasn't plagued with tons of spy/malware. I've never met a single mac user who's ever had any. Obviously the result of some more slapdash hacks. How many times has my G5 crashed in the year Ive had it (think its been a year, close anyway)? ZERO. My Windows box? Let's just say the it would probably be easier to count the weeks in which it didnt lock up/crash. Nevermind, you're right, BEAUTIFUL architecture will always defeat slapdash hacks.

Re:Apple isn't stupid

[NoodleSlayer]

Really, people are in love with their Mac because of OS X, not because of the silicon and components that make up the hardware.

Hardly. If anything the original iMac should of taught you is that Apple above else is a fashion company.

They sell computers that look (objective, yes, but still) and function "great."

PowerBooks sell incredibly well because among other things compared to many PC Laptops they are made very well. Where many PC Laptops feel like they're made out of cheap plastic the Mac Laptops are made out of Bulletproof plastic (iBooks) and Aluminum (PowerBooks)

They're designed in a way that its practically impossible to accidently hit any buttons from the outside. No eject button that keeps getting pushed while you're trying on your lap. No Play/Stop buttons that get tapped at inconvient moments. And more over all of the ports are on the side of the laptops, nothing hidden on the back of the machine so no having to reach around and guess where the cable goes in or having to close the lid or rotate the laptop to get to it.

Lots of thought went into the actual case design of the PowerBook and iBook that in the case of many PC Laptops simply isn't there.

I had a PC Laptop (still do) that the CD-Rom drive try broke because as I was putting the laptop down the overly sensitive eject button on the drive got tapped and within a split second popped out while it was being put down and snapped off. That sort of thing doesn't happen with a PowerBook or iBook.

I already know people that are planning on buying Intel-based PowerBooks when they come out just to stick Windows on them because on average a 12" PowerBook holds up much better then the equivalent PC Laptop.

That's not to say that they are entirely without flaw, but stepping into a Apple Store it should be noticable that the design of the machines themselves is very significant to Apple and to many people that buy their products.

Moreover. Mac OS X simply isn't made to run on non-Apple hardware. The testing bluntly put isn't there. Its made to run on hardware that has been approved and shipped by Apple with its drivers tested to make sure it doesn't conflict with anything, hopefully. The amount of extra work that would have to be done developing and QA to ensure that Mac OS X works on all the hardware available for the PC right now just isn't done at Apple right now, nor has Apple shown the desire to do it.

Re:Apple isn't stupid

[hkmwbz]

"Linux continues the march critical desktop mass"

What's funny is that I keep seeing Linux geeks on Slashdot bragging about how they've made the switch to the great Mac, and how they can't understand why they didn't do it earlier. I never see comments about Slashdotters switching from Mac to Linux or Windows. It's always the other way around. And it's not just a few comments. It seems that every time Mac is brought up on Slashdot, people are lining up to tell everyone how they ditched Windows/Linux and went with mac.

Funny, isn't it?

(I am a Windows user.)