Slashdot Mirror
Apple Should Get Out of Hardware?
SQLGuru writes to mention an analyst recommendation being reported on ZDNet. Despite a BusinessWeek article about Apple's record breaking hardware sales, the folks at Gartner think Apple should get out of the hardware business. Calling for the company to license its hardware to Dell, the analyst company says that gains in Apple's hardware sales are simply not sustainable. From the article: "Apple's margins for its Mac business, currently around 40 percent, are only sustainable because component makers such as Intel choose to prop up the business, Gartner claimed. Given that HP has forced Intel to offer it comparable pricing to Dell, Intel is unlikely to continue to subsidise Apple, the analyst argues. 'As a result of permanently changed market conditions, Intel has been forced to restructure and, in our opinion, cannot go on supporting Apple (or any other customer) indefinitely.'"
is hardware!
Are you serious?
Dell sells in two weeks what Apple sells in a year. Corporations, and HUGE ONES, base their hardware, from servers to desktops to laptops on Dell.
No they ain't fancy, but they do work, and work quite well (this post brought to you via a Dell D620).
It's fanboi comments like this that make the Apple Religious laughing stocks.
This used to be the standard advice given when Apple was ailing in the 90's. Back then it was slightly different, as they were suggesting that Apple license out their OS and let others handle the hardware side.
But controlling the hardware is good for Apple. When none of the PC manufacturers jumped onto USB, Apple did. The same with Firewire.
This is why hardware is good for Apple. Because they can innovate like that with the least amount of Red Tape.
Without hardware, they would not have had their successes no matter how awesome Mac OS X - iPod, iMac, their notebooks in general.
Hell, I think they should produce more hardware - like a Newton successor, preferably something small and that can slide into a PCMIA slot to do the syncing and charging.
Anybody who suggests Apple gets out of hardware is smoking something. And it's not the good stuff either.
Yet, the response is always the same. Apple is a hardware company first, and a software company second. Especially now, where they are selling actual intel PCs with their logo slapped on them. Without the income generated from sales of such hardware (and the ipod), Apple could not survive in this market. Mac OS X is a decent OS, but not good enough to convince companies and schools around the world to spend thousands on software to make the transition away from the more commonly used Windows OS.
Perhaps if Microsoft wasn't so dominant in the software arena, Apple could get out of the hardware business, but until that day comes, Apple will always be primarily a hardware company above all else.
8==8 Bones 8==8
Is he saying Apple's core business was seeded by Intel. And that without Intel rooting for them, it'll be the pits, so Apple should branch out into other areas?
Actually, Apple has a good name, with solid products like the Macbook, iPod, and OS X. I don't think Apple will have that mcuh of a problem. People don't run to Apple because of price, they run to them because they make decent, user-friendly hardware. Comparable devices are copies of them, and usually more expensive. If prices rise, Apple will go up a bit more, but will that actually drive people away?
Have you read my journal today?
First, we'll assume that Apple actually wants to continue their high rate of growth, which may not be the case. (eg, Jaguar could take a bigger market if they licensed their name to Ford ... um ... okay, bad example)
The 40% margins are based on what? Because I would think that were Apple to get 20% of the market (over 3x what it is today), the individual costs of the OS are effectively 1/3 per machine in cost, comparatively. And the larger they get, the more sway they might have.
And let's not forget -- Apple on Intel is a form of advertising for Intel. Apple is very, very good at getting in the press, so Intel might be willing to take a smaller margin in exchange.
Build it, and they will come^Hplain.
Good thing Gartner is responsible for such great machines that they can... oh wait, they don't make anything but over-priced analysis.
I've had some decently-made PCs out of the 10 or 12 I've owned, but nothing like the quality of my Macs. I switched for home use a couple of years ago with a PowerBook. I added a MacMini last spring and a quad MacPro recently, and they are absolutely some of the nicest machines I've ever seen since I started as a tech in '79.
Apple would be completely stupid to give up that control and differentiation from everyone else.
The revolution will NOT be televised.
Can we PLEASE stop spelling "fanboy" as "fanboi"? It is stupid.
The masses are the crack whores of religion.
A few counterpoints: 1. Apple is a hardware company. They make their revenue from hardware sales, not from software sales. 2. Apple makes superior hardware. Have you seen the inside of the Mac Pro? I have one, and I'm very impressed. The only internal cable is for the IDE optical drive. Everything else is modular. 3. Apple doesn't actually make their own hardware. They design it and have it manufactured to specifications. The motherboard of the Mac Pro was designed by Intel and Apple, but is manufactured by Intel. So, if one would agree with me that their hardware is superior, and one understands that Apple does not manufacture the hardware, how would Apple be limited in manufacturing ability, and how would it help Apple in any way to completely commoditize (if that is a word...) the production of hardware to support their OS? When Apple needs to ramp up production, they can choose an additional manufacturer to support their needs. In addition, since Apple makes a majority of their money from hardware, they would need to redesign their business model to become profitable in the software market. And by the way, is Intel really here to "prop up the market" or are they here to make money? I can't imagine Intel is making deals like those with Apple and intentionally losing money.
Never ask for directions from a two-headed tourist! -Big Bird
is that Gartner should go out of business permanently. This is just yet another load of BS from them, just like "50% of tech jobs will be outsourced in the next 5 years, and as it JUST so happens we have an offshore consultancy agency. Imagine that!"
Nothing but crap comes out of Gartner, how they are still in business is beyond me.
Monstar L
Because everyone can offer Windows XP, but only Apple can offer OSX?
The major components like CPU, memory, and HD are the same but it is a simplification to say that it's all the same hardware. Especially when it comes to laptops. Except for BIY PCs, PCs are not all that interchangeable when you buy from the major manufacturers. You cannot replace a Dell MB with a HP MB and expect it to work perfectly. If you've done actually pricing between a Dell and an Apple feature for feature, the Apple is cheaper. Dell's target customer are those willing to pay the lowest price, period. Apple is not interested in that customer so their design is different than Dell's.
Some would argure one of the reason that OS X works so well it that it does not have to support the plethora of hardware that XP or Linux supports. Apple controls their own destiny when they control their own hardware. Again, Apple isn't looking to court the BIY customer.
Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
Gee with increasing volumes large margins are not sustainable because Apple won't get as good of deals from Intel? Yeah that makes sense.. err wait no it doesn't! As volume goes up, Apple will get better deals from component manufacturers, in general, not worse. Maybe Intel will not cut them as nice of deals, but with increasing volumes, Apple does not need to maintain margins. Most of their costs are fixed. OS development, marketing, industrial design, etc. make up most of their costs, but remain fixed no matter how many units they ship. If they ship twice as many, they can cut their margins in half without being affected.
Either the Gartner people are looking to the very short term or they're out of their minds. The only way to free yourself from the influence of a monopoly is to maintain a complete vertical chain of components, including the one they have monopolized, but separate from their market. Apple doesn't sell their OS to Dell for two reasons. One, it would seriously cut into their hardware sales as people went to what they perceive as cheaper machines and were unable to compete with Dell's market outlets. Two, MS will kill Dell if they tried shipping OS X pre-installed. As soon as Dell had to re-negotiate their OEM licenses for Windows, MS would offer them the choice of being the largest supplier of computers in the US, with the cheapest rate for Windows, or being the most expensive supplier of PCs in the US. Assuming Gartner is 100% correct and Dell took all of that market, they'd still only be selling 13% of the machines in the US and they'd lose almost all of their existing 32% of the PC market selling Windows machines. Oh Dell would love that bargaining chip, but it just might kill Apple.
No, now is not the time for such a move. Everyone who has tried to compete in that market has been killed by MS's lock-ins, even though several had superior offerings at the time. Apple needs to maintain their segregation until either the courts actually stop MS's antitrust actions or until they or Linux has grabbed a bigger chunk of the pie.
They design them.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but aren't ALL Apple products built under contract by factories in Asia?
What could they possibly gain by turning their manufacturing over to Dell?
This is not a slam at Apple. I own macs and ipods and I think they design great products. I just don't think there's an "Apple" factory out there churning out the gizmos. Why would they turn to Dell -- a company with a horrible, horrible track record for quality and reliability -- to make their products, when their current business arrangements seem to be working just fine?
$10B in the bank, no debt, 12 profitable quarters in a row, growing marketshare...this needs fixing how, exactly?
The Gartner guys must have mixed vodka with their Red Bull again.
Dell making apple computers would be a bit like repurposing the old Ford Taurus plant to make Ferrari's.
Is Jaguar close enough for your analogy?
My last laptop was a Dell Inspiron 1100. Within two months of getting the MacBook, the Dell laptop was in the closet. If you were to compare the MacBook with a Dell D620, the MacBook is a wonderfully engineered machine. While big corporations buy tons of Dell every year, corporate buyers care only about the price and not the user experience.
Yes, they sell a lot. And it's not top quality. From what I've seen there's about a 20% failure rate on machines. (I.e. needs a part replaced fairly soon. Usually the HDs).
Keep in mind that huge corps also base their software on Windows, and that doesn't make that inherently better either. Huge corporations go with the flow - nothing to upset the cart, because that can get you fired. If you're old enough, you'll remember the "Nobody ever got fired for buying IBM" slogan. *That* is why Windows and Dell are prevalent.
What Gartner fails to understand is that the winds of change say more about Intel then it does about Apple. Intel can't afford not to subsidize Apple or HP or Dell or anyone else. Intel is realizing that consumers, particularly Apple's consumers, don't really care what's on the inside. It could be Intel, AMD, PowerPC or SPARC and as long as the system is still running.br>
The fact is, the processor has become a commodity. The "experience" and end-to-end design that Apple sells is not a commodity. Who has lost their completitive advantage? It sure isn't Apple, and they know that.
But Apple can only be in the software business if they control the hardware, and prevent tweaking, because a great deal of their stability, not to mention their software team size, depends on that hardware control. Just because the hardware is not more powerful than say, an AMD64, it can still be a difference, if say, you get to test your code on it six months in advance. You can't test a DIY six months in advance.
So, let me get this straight,
Dell strikes a sweet deal with Intel after opening up it's systems to the AMD line...
HP muscles in and says it will go to AMD (I assume) unless it gets the same deal as Dell.
Dell and HP are in a deathgrip to maintain market share for the corporate and household WinTel platform, and are being nipped at by Lenovo, BestBuy, Walmart, etc, for market share, house branding, and margins
Apple, which has the luxury of owning premium software that can run on multiple platforms, let alone on an x86 platform, and is probably already paying slightly more (due to volumes) than Dell or HP, Apple is the EVIL one here, and should be punished by Intel asking for a higher per unit cost for components, because Apple is more profitable?
I see this as ludicrous as Goodyear asking for Honda to pay [even] more for the same tire as GM and Ford, because Honda can afford to pay it... x86 is a freakin' commodity, like pork bellies, and batteries (SONY, pay attention!!!). It's an important commodity, but fundamentally, a chip is a chip, and it's just that.
Intel is not subsidizing Apple... Intel is subsidizing the big boy PC maker market in order to stave off AMD and maintain market their share. This article infers that Intel will soon ask Apple to help subsidize this partnership, and apple will be in no position to fight back....
I hope Apple says either "AMD called yesterday and built a proto system on the PLUON chip... It ran OSX without mods... doesn't need another Universal Binary... just plug and play" or "You know, you should come over sometime... the boys in the labs, They built a sweet OS X system that uses a CELL chip from IBM.... Obtw, here's our order for 6million Core 2 Duo and Quad CPUs... volume pricing hasn't changed... correct?"
That's nice... Now I wish someone could explain to me why, if Dell is selling 37.3 million PCs, that Apple would want to homogenize their product to look just like Dell's since Dell seems to have that market pretty much covered. This article is pretty much telling any niche computer manufacturer that they should give up and just sell Dells. You can bunch Alienware into that category, and your local retailer, and Joe Bob who builds PCs from white-boxes down the street. It's dumb, because they're proposing that to compete with Dell, they should offer the exact same product Dell ships, which is what Apple customers are absolutely not looking for. Apple customers buy Apple because they do not want to buy Dell. Why would Apple give up that advantage? And finally, it's not like Apple is treading water here. Steve doesn't need business advice from "pundits" that don't seem to understand what a product is.
Luck favors the prepared, darling.
"the USB move was probably the smartest platform move apple made"
That was a terrible move: very anti-user. Apple would have been much better off phasing out non-USB ports only after the number of non-USB devices had dwindled a lot. What Appel did really screwed the user: making a machine without necessary standard-of-the-day ports in order to force the user to buy dongles or new peripherals because Apple thought that it was somehow immoral for users to use non-USB interface devices. (I've got a nice parellel-port printer I can still use on most PCs because they still have a port. Why? Because the printer is STILL A GOOD PRINTER, and PC manufacturers tend to respond to what the users need rather than Apple, which has fits of forcing morality like this.)
Where were you when the voynix came?
Wasn't Apple, like, actually doomed in '97?
Attention deficit disorder is a complicated issue, spanning several major... HEY LET'S GO RIDE BIKES!
Apple is a premium hardware maker and designer, but their OS isn't that special, and developers as a whole have rejected it.
Excuse me? I look around at fellow IT developers and quite a few of them have accepted OS X.
Furthermore Apple has done a great job growing really useful framrworks in the OS like Core Image and Core Data. There are an ever expanding group of developers for OSX who have seen what a pretty good development environment (XCode) and a well thought set of frameworks can do for productivity.
I know the Apple fans out there will fight me to their death, but the facts don't match up with you. Apple is slowly making the transition...
I won't fight you, I don't need to - for the obvious progression is to use Windows for legacy apps and switch everything else to the Mac. Bootcamp is Apple's 3270 emulator - it lets you keep using some old applications while moving forward.
Or really parallels is, Bootcamp is a slightly less convinent form of the same thing.
If you think Apple is anywhere close to giving up OS X just as it is exploding in popularity and usefulness then you might have something.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
One quick comment, but Vista closes the gap briefly. When was the last major update to Windows prior to Vista? 2001. That's 6 years between upgades, and the changes we've seen between versions haven't been particularly significant.
Windows is rapidly becoming a victim of it's own success. Making substantial changes to the code is difficult because they have to maintain compatibility with all the crap that's already out there. Apple has been able to go back to the drawing board and start with something totally new which has allowed them to be far more innovative.
So while Vista will close the gap, it'll then be another 5-6 years before the next Windows version and Apple will come out with many useful changes in the meantime.
Aside from that though, I believe Apple would be foolish to change their business model. Their selling point is that they control the whole experience. Apple's always have the impression of being more expensive, but that's because Apple doesn't generally make low end systems. They make higher end high quality systems and then make sure everything works well.
This sig has been temporarily disconnected or is no longer in service
Eventually apple will announce the costs of maintaining OSX doesn't meet the interest of the public, and they will start going to head to head with Dell selling windows desktops.
Funny, I'd be more inclined to think the opposite. It seems more likely to me that, as Vista crashes and burns and IT departments reject it for it's insane piracy-protection measures, Dell and other PC vendors will look at Apple's success and wonder if they should start offering their own optimized versions of open-sourced software. Not that I think it's entirely likely right now, but more likely than Apple dropping OSX.
Developers haven't rejected OSX. Some developers just haven't been releasing OSX software because OSX lacked the market share to be a profitable platform for them. That appears to be changing, as Apple is getting more and more mainstream attention. In fact, I've heard a lot of developers say that Apple is a great platform to develop for, and that Xcode is a great environment (can't vouch for that, since I'm not a programmer).
Finally, I just can't imagine Steve Jobs will ever, so long as he's in control of the company, ship Macintoshes booting into Windows by default. I know, people doubted the Intel switch, said it would never happen, etc. But this is different. You're talking about Steve Jobs and Microsoft Windows here.
Just try to get on-site service work.
They basically only do it for ram and Hard drive problems, anything else and you still have to send the machine in, plus you wasted extra time in dealing with getting a support person out there.
How do I know this. My mother recently bought her first new computer(she was getting hand me downs from myself and my sister). Oddly enough the HP laptop had a backlight problem she spent the better part of 8 weeks trying to get HP to admit it. Finally they did and the machine needed to be mailed(on HP's tab at least) to them repaired, and sent back. Are HP's total crap? Nope I don't think so. It was just a defect. But that On site warrenty isn't as good as you think it is.
I much perfer Apples. I take it to one of the many apple stores, and they deal with it, if they can, if not I too have to deal with the same hassle of sending it in.
Service wise Apple comes out slightly better. Hence why Apple is Consumer Reports best tech company for such things.
i thought once I was found, but it was only a dream.
Seems like Apple is making a shitload of cash just fine without being dell.
T Money
World Domination with a plastic spoon since 1984
Getting out of the hardware business has been a great strategy for Amiga, NeXT, BeOS, Sun, Transmeta, ...
It should work great for Apple, too.
As usual, the loudest criticisms of Apple are the ones based on the machines of a decade ago. Honestly, who still cares about the Centris/Performa/LC series or even the G3? What's next, a scathing critique of System 7?
Also, do the Mac fans still get to be snarky about PCs in general because Packard Bell and eMachines made such awful clunkers, or is this tactic reserved for the Apple-bashers only?
0 1 - just my two bits
Of those 9000 laptops I can see:
About 25 that have been dropped, water damaged or otherwise user destroyed.
Two that had unexplained video problems
47 that have had battery issues (not holding charges typically)
14 that have had the locking mechanism on the front damaged.
Still looks FAR under the 20% number you are giving and I have a much larger install base.
"That said however, I'm not gonna blow but so much money on what will essentially be an OS experiment for me."
It's all about how much your time is worth to you. $2k really is a lot of money, and I understand that it's too much for some. But like almost anything, quality costs more, and if you can afford better quality, you will spend less time maintaining it, or learning its quirks etc.
I used to be a mac hater years ago. Then I used one. learned that instead of feeling smug because i knew how smart you had to be to really get useful things done on a computer, I could just put that energy into just getting things done period. For most of us, it's not about the computer, it's about design, chemistry, architecture, whatever.
sigs are for losers (except to point out that sigs are for losers)
That meme died a long time ago. Macs, particularly the iMac and the Mac Pro (which is $1,000 less than the equivalently configured Dell workstation), give you a LOT of value for your dollar.
Apple-haters really need to find some new material.
"Sufferin' succotash."
and to those of us with a Windows machine, it still matters. Every time (every stinking time) I open an Explorer window to the "machine" level, I have to wait 5 seconds while Windows dutifully checks the floppy drive so it can see what to display for A: Never mind the fact that there is not now nor has their ever been a disk in the drive, never mind the fact that the last time anyone used a floppy was two versions of Windows back, the PC manufacturer still installed the drive and Windows still wastes time checking for a floppy.
It wasn't morally offensive, it was just a nusaince. I too am glad to see the death of them.
Interested in a Flash-based MAME front end? Visit mame.danzbb.com
"While big corporations buy tons of Dell every year, corporate buyers care only about the price and not the user experience."
No, they care about user experience. Big corporations want Windows, multiple sourcing, and suppliers who know how to sell and support in large volumes. That's the user experience they care about, not the brushed metal themes, the fancy packaging and the grammatically superior dialogs. That's why they buy Dell and not Apple.
I take exception to your statement about cost.
Apple's offerings are NOT more expensive than comparably equipped, say, Dells. The issue is that they do not have a low end el cheapo to compete with Dell's $500 junk.
They do NOT sell OS X at a premium, they sell it at a very competitive price, compared to Windows. Get the story straight. But, no they will never dump the hardware side; that's their bread and butter.
"Money is truthful. If a man speaks of his honor, make him pay cash." Notebooks of Lazarus Long, Robert A. Heinlein
And IBM had it before anyone else....errr....excuse me....Lenovo.....
Gorkman
FF Market Share will drop over the next year.
Actually it is based upon multiple methods of information gathering, including spot checking and anonymous tests.
Wait a second, you take a jab at Consumer Reports' methodology and then you make an assertion like this based upon your views of what you read in a particular forum? Is that supposed to be a joke?
You make a lot of generalizations and assumptions, but the truth is the best data to date indicates Apple's support is better than average and you have no data to refute that claim. If you objectively look at the information, the best guess is the Apple's support is better.
Have you ever considered that a lot of UNIX types know exactly what they are doing, but simply have different priorities than you do? Open source, free software is a feature of software, but considering only one feature rather than the whole package is absurd. I use OS X, Windows, Linux, and OpenBSD every day. Each has their strengths and weaknesses. I'd love to have a primary workstation that was completely open source. I'm just not willing to give up all the features of OS X or all the available library of software for Windows to do it. The sad truth is, for a lot of tasks, their is no good Linux solution. For a lot of tasks, Linux itself, regardless of the applications, is inferior. I don't have the time or money to get the features I want added to Linux and it is falling further behind on the desktop, not catching up. When Linux has functional system services I can use and a two step upgrade path to a new machine, via a firewire cable, let me know. Until then, Linus will be on servers and Linux and Windows will both be running in VMs under OS X on the desktop.
Apple's edge isn't OSX, it isn't the iPod, it isn't softly glowing lights, it's the overall style. Have you seen DELL's concept of "Style"? The big thing is to partner and outsource and break down a company into its core competency, well, I say Apple's core competency is style, and they have to keep all the parts that are intimately tied to their being able to deliver on the style. OBVIOUSLY, they are already outsourcing some of their manufacturing, or we wouldn't have viral-infected iPods floating around.
The day I trust an analyst is the day I trust a politician.
Returned Peace Corps IT Volunteer
Actually, yes. I would think the Jaguar example is a good analogy. Before Ford purchased Jaguar, Jaguar was the maker of desirable cars. Ones that, while they weren't the most reliable, per se, they certainly looked good, felt good and were very unique.
Now, Ford owns them, and look what's happened. Aside from the top-end car, every other one is essentially a rebranded Tauras with leather seats. They're absolute crap both interior wise, and component wise.
So ya, if Dell made Apple computers, it would be the same thing. Rebranded crappy computers.
Microsoft dont support much in hardware. Its the hardware manufacturers themselves that does that. The drivers that comes with Windwos is made 99% by the hardware industry themselves. Microsofts costs lie in their marketing department. Gotta have that excellent sales staff to sell canned poo! Apple can just do as Microsoft does, rake in large sums of money to let the hardware manufacturers confirm to a MAC OS X ready logo and standard. PS. Microsoft has Q&A? WTF, have you ever used any of their products? DS.
HTTP/1.1 400
Personally, I'm happy with any computer built since the Difference Engine (Hey, I'm old. Ada Lovelace was hot).
But I also know that the rest of the world ain't like me and you. There are whole groups of professionals who must - by charter - eschew innovation (floor care nurses come to mind) and the less they have to think about computers the more comfortable they are. For me, mouse buttons >= 3 is better. For others, mouse buttons > 0 are problematic, mouse buttons > 1 are Way Beyond The Comfort Zone. There are a lot of those people out there.
Do not mock my vision of impractical footwear
I totally agree. I first used osx a year ago or so and am convinced that is how computing should work for users. It's all of the little things that you mention that put it above a linux or windows desktop. Of course it has it's issues like any piece of software, but it works and works well.
In fact, I'm not sure that linux can ever reach that type of integration or functionality by the very nature of OSS. Not that it's a bad thing, but lack of integration will always relegate linux to server room or the techies desktop.
In addressing the premise of the recommendation from this particular Gartner analyst, one has to wonder why a company would get out of a highly profitable area of their business while it is still highly profitable. The day may come when selling computers is not a good financial thing for Apple to do, but until that time I am pretty confident Apple will continue doing it.
Of course, many of us also question the prediction for other reasons. First, Apple is not just in the computer hardware business. They sell an overall user experience. The unique design of the hardware and the software are components in that overall experience - each is not easily separable from the other. Second, Apple's current strategy has been extremely effective. They continue to increase market share in each segment they operate in. The line between the iPod and the Mac computer line is continuing to blur without risking the individual segments.
It continues to amaze me that any analyst would be unable to comprehend that Apple's business model is not Dell's. Having not read the analysts actual report (too lazy to download it), I hope that he is only referring to the supply chain and manufacturing efficiencies that Dell is supposed to enjoy over other companies. However, I suspect that Apple is getting as efficient as Dell in these areas. If you look at their component inventory on-hand (at about 4-6 days), they seem to be quite good in their supply chain management. The earlier point that their margins may decrease seems a more salient point than to suggest that Apple would be any less capable of being able to profit from the computer business.
You do realize that Apple gets its hardware from the same suppliers and contractors that make PC hardware right? The same capacitors that are in your Apple could have just as easily from the same bad batch that went into Asus MBs. The fact they they may not have been the same was strictly chance or luck. The same Power MOSFET like a NEC K3296 TO-220 chip package all come from the same place. For a more recent example, think Sony batteries.
There are companies that seem to lack consistent engineering skills and produce below par "PC" systems but there are very high quality ones as well. Your globing together of all PC hardware companies under "Windows" is not a fair assessment by any means. Your statement would be similar to stating all European cars suck because your Yugo sucked.
You can ignore the rest of my post because it is just my own anecdotal evidence that is probably worthless to you.
I have been doing rolling upgrades of my home PCs since the early 90's. I've probably owned and had at least 25 PC's pass through my hands (work computers not included). With the exception of hard drives, the only hardware I've had that failed was two motherboards, several power supply fans, a network card, and a stick of memory or two. Not too bad considering some was off brand and some was handed down from unknown origins. My Linux file server is an old no name P3 600 that I got for free when I installed some new systems at a local small company. It has been running 24x7x365 since 2002 at my house and god only knows how long at that company. That P3 replaced a much older Pentium I 200 that is still running 24x7x365 to this day as my home router. When I post this message, my packets will pass through it..
Oddly enough, my post about a PC running since 1996 will get marked as a troll or off topic but the parent post informing of an Apple running since 1996 is currently +4 Insightful. What makes one insightful and another offtopic? Shows the true motivation of those specific moderators I guess. You want to mod something insightful? Wait until someone shows how Apples core board components are "better" or any different then any other electronical device with electronic components. Until then, everyone agreeing with the parent does not want to actually think about that but would rather agree to the thoughtless catch phrase of "its just better". Yeah, the same thing a used car salesmen says.
Complete, utter, and total shash..
---- Apple computers make up a tiny market share.
Apple's market share is growing, and guess what: that growth had to come from somewhere. Apple is taking share away from the other players in the market. It's also interesting to note that while Apple is #4 is market share right now (behind Gateway, but not for long), their profits for this quarter were $584 million. Gateway (.3% ahead of Apple right now in sales share) lost about $80 million last quarter, and Dell (#1) had profits of about $510 million for its last quarter. In other words, Dell and Gateway had to sell something like six times as many computers as Apple to make $160 million less than Apple did over the last quarter.
---- Dell and HP will continue to grow.
That's debatable. Dell and HP sell a lot of $300 computers at either a razor-thin profit as an actual loss-leader. A company that buys 1500 cheap desktop units for the workers will also buy a couple hundred high-end laptops for the executives.. and the laptops probably bring Dell more actual profit than the whole consignment of desktops. Thing is, Apple's growing market share is coming from the $1500-5000 price range, where Dell and HP make their real money.
Apple will be absolutely delighted to see Dell and HP ship 80% of the computers sold in the market, as long as that 80% comes from the sub-$1k, $2-profit-per-unit loss-leader segment. Meanwhile, Apple will sit happily on the 20% of unit sales that generate 25% profit on a $1500-5000 sale per machine.
---- How many small incremental features can be added to the iPod before people look the other way? Rivals are offering similar devices with more features at a lower price.
And consumers voting with their wallets don't give a shit. Those lower-priced units with similar features also offer a lousy user experience, which is just certain to get better now that Microsoft has jumped firmly astride the fence with its dual Zune-to-be-coming and Plays-for-Sure-Unless-It-Doesn't initiatives. The numbers for the past several years show that Apple holds about 75% of the global market and everyone else competes for the remaining 25%. Any competitors who want to take market share away from Apple have to do better than 'similar features (but lousy usability) at a slightly lower price'. They have to offer something that's significantly better. And since the competition is currently stuck in "which one sucks least?" territory, that isn't likely to happen any time soon.
---- Apple is sunk without a strategic alliance and a different strategy.
Apple is making money hand over fist in a market where everyone else is fighting to survive. And if you want a strategic alliance, wait 'til the cross-pollination between Apple's R&D and Intel's R&D starts to kick in. Apple is willing to push new technology into the market, where the Wintel manufacturers wait to adopt (or release) technology until a trend is established (look how long it took to get rid of parallel ports). Intel has spent years developing concept platforms that none of the Wintel OEMs have been willing to take to market. Apple wants an edge on technology, Intel wants a vendor to showcase its new tech. And now the two are working together.
Apple's machines are generally built by contract PC manufacturers in Asia; Apple already is largely only design, marketing, distribution, and some software development. Involving Dell would only increase costs for Apple.
This is precisely why I never listen to such analyst. They are dumb.
The point of Apple is to make hardware ergonomic and user friendly. Software is the glue. But regardless of quality of glue, you cannot force user to stick with shit.
Look at M$ and its relations of OEMs & hardware manufacturers - and resulting quality of Windows, its drivers and integration with hardware. This is precisely what would happen to Apple, would it ever stop being vertical company: crashes & blue screens (since software would never know hardware it runs), incompatibilities & over-delayed releases (since exact way hardware works might be known only few weeks before it's released).
Apple would never do that.
HAHAHA! Morons! Apple survived not single CPU manufacturer/architecture in past, with Intel being third. Apple is outliving CPUs for sure. That's tradition.
What's more, for Intel now Apple is becoming important part. Compared to other HW manufacturers, Apple has very narrow well defined goals it is trying to achieve no matter what. That's something certain for Intel in the uncertain market.
Also, Apple is often early adopter. (I do not know even where to start with what they did first. Plug&Play & USB as two big examples.) And that's again good for Intel, since they can now pilot new technologies on "high end" Apple's hardware, w/o need to wait for other manufacturers who are in their turn wait for Intel to drop prices. Win-win combination: Intel can sell more expensive hardware to people who can appreciate it and Apple can improve its "exclusiveness" rating.
All hope abandon ye who enter here.