Leopard Vs. Vista

Rockgod writes to point us to an ongoing series of articles, "Leopard vs. Vista," by Daniel Eran. The latest is part 4, Naked Sales, and it's a meditation on hardware without Windows, Apple's strategy of hardware-software integration, and the dissatisfactions that arise from the creative tension between Microsoft and hardware manufacturers. (The earlier articles in the series are linked form this one.) From the article: "The vast majority of PCs come with Windows pre-installed, and actually can't be sold without it. Leading PC hardware makers can't freely advertise PCs sold without Windows, or with an alternative OS such as Linux, without having to pay Microsoft significantly more for every other OEM license they ship. That's why all name brand PCs prominently repeat their own version of the cult-like phrase 'Dell recommends Windows XP Professional,' as if there were a choice in the matter and they thought it would be helpful to provide some guidance... Apple's current Get a Mac advertising campaign doesn't compare Mac OS X to Windows, it compares the complete experience of a Mac with that of a PC. After all, Windows is only half of what's wrong with the PC as a product."

Comments

Integration has always been Apple's differentiator

[Infonaut]

From the original Mac, back in 1984, to the iPod, Apple has always been about integrating hardware and software into one seamless experience. They certainly haven't always hit the mark, but it seems they have an advantage in an era where experience design continues to become more important.

Discussion about whether Apple is a hardware company or a software company has been going on for ages, but Apple has always been a systems company. Microsoft has subordinated hardware to software, and the PC industry has developed according to that dictate. Maybe that is why so many people immersed in the Windows world have a hard time understanding how the Mac is different.

Because there is no enforcement.

[khasim]

It was deemed illegal to have "per-processor" licenses. So they don't have them any more.

But it is still "legal" to pay Dell to be part of your "advertising campaign". Which, in effect, reduces the cost Dell pays Microsoft per license. Those who do not want to be full partners in the campaign will be paid less than those who do.

Logical, isn't it? So if you push Windows instead of Linux, you pay less for Windows than if you did not. And the profit margins are so slim on computers now that the OEM's will take whatever deal is offered in order to increase their profits.

And since Microsoft still has the monopoly on the desktop, all the OEM's have to offer Windows. Even if they don't like the terms of the deal.

Re:Because there is no enforcement.

[westlake]

So you're telling me that if Gateway + HP + Dell decided to offer Linux only, they would go bankrupt because no one would buy anything from them?

Well, yes.

There are enormous economies of scale in building for the Windows market. You do not opt out of a market that has ninety to ninety-five percent of your potential customers.

Re:"Macs aren't more expensive..[shipped] with an

[kraut]

> A Mac would be cheaper if Apple didn't have to develop OS X.
Of course it wouldn't be a Mac either.

Vista? No thanks. XP or OSX will do fine.

[Channard]

I've recently got a Mac Mini and it's kind of handy, though I'm undecided as to whether my PC will get upgraded, or replaced, or if I"ll stick with Macs. What I do know is that I won't be plumping for vista given the high system demands it's got. 1GB memory at least? Er, no. What Leopard has going for it is that it doesn't require a significantly higher spec than a Mac running OSX 10.4.

Re:Integration has always been Apple's differentia

[fermion]

The thing is that the only companies that mattered, up to the mid 80's, were the system integrators. They were the one that deliver the machines that would do the job. It made sense. Few people wish to have a compressor dropped off at thier door,and then be told they can build the refrigerator. Most people don't even want to repair the refrigerator. So the important companies were the ones that not only delivered complete solutions, but that supported those solutions as well. Companies like IBM and Xerox.

The problem was that those solutions were very expensive, and what MS did was decouple the OS from the machine to create a myth of an equally powerful cheap machine. I say myth because if all the costs were factored in, the savings often were not that great. What was the benefit is that a person could buy a much more flexible machine, and if they were on a budget, but a lower quality machine than would be available from a company that actually cared about reputaion. As time went on, MS forced it's OS onto every machines, and created the monopoly. Any OEM, really system integrator that actually provided support to the end user, was forced to supply only MS OS, while MS could sit there raking in the profits while doing comparatively little.

But the front line is still, and always will be, the system company. These are the people that provide the front line support. The problem with the PC industry is that though they provide the front line support, they do not in fact reap very much of the profit. MS, who does relatively little, get the money, while all the real producers are fighting for the crumbs. But it is thier decision.

The point is that the long term successful companies are system companies that keep attuned to the users needs. IBM is a good example. HP is a good example. Apple is a good example. In fact, when Apple tried to be a hardware company, with spin off of Claris, the Newton that did not integrate, and a failing OS, the company floundered. It bought into the idea that hardware companies were more viable than system integrators. As much as people wish for Apple clones, supporting every cheap piece of trash on the planer comes at too high of a price.

Even MS is going to be a systems company, if it will survive. It will survive on the XBox, which is an intergrated product. It will survive on phones, if it will ever just make one instead of trying to force the phone companies like it did the computer OEM. Otherwise it will just be a speciality shop, serving legacy machines.

Re:Can someone explain this to me?

[BlueCodeWarrior]

When you buy a Mac, you're not just buying a computer. You're buying an experience.

When you lay down the cash for that shiny new MacBook, you're not just paying for the hardware. You're not just paying for the OS. You're paying for it to Just Work (tm).

Apple has quite the reputation to live up to in the Just Works department. Even if they released a 'generic x86 OSX' with the disclaimer of 'don't expect it to work at all,' people would still expect it to. Apple would still get bad press over it. That's not what they want.

Re:Can someone explain this to me?

[Nefarious Wheel]

Please understand, I love Apple AND Macs. Heh -- that sounds a bit like "both kinds of music".

Macs are a bit more expensive by design, I believe. Cultural exclusivity plays a small part in the pricing and marketing. But a strong economic reason for Macs being (a) perceivably better and (b) more expensive is that by narrowing their choice of common components down to a single set that they know integrate well, they are opting out of the competitive race that drives the costs and quality of a typical Windows PC down to least-common-denominator.

BTW I've worked for both Apple and Microsoft. Apple's reality distortion field was way nicer.