Steve Ballmer, if you're reading this, your head just exploded.

Wait, that could happen even if you're not reading this. You jumped up on furniture long before Tom Cruise did.

Anyway, nice wishful thinking on their part, but it will be a COLD day in Hell before it happens (though I have to say, our temperature dropped a good 20Ñ” overnight......)

LOL. Forget the failed Power Computing experiment from the mid-nineties... and then make the same mistake again. I didn't realize anyone with a brain was still on this bandwagon. We all know why the idea is stupid. Its not worth discussing anymore.

You just need to run it on Apple hardware.

Quote

Biff wrote:
LOL. Forget the failed Power Computing experiment from the mid-nineties... and then make the same mistake again. I didn't realize anyone with a brain was still on this bandwagon. We all know why the idea is stupid. Its not worth discussing anymore.

Times have changed. A lot. And cloning was not the sole reason for Apple's failure in the mid-90s, anyway. I agree with Steve Jobs' decision to axe the clones; at that time, it was the right thing to do, because Apple was in a terrible position. But Apple never should have been in that position to begin with (clones or no). If they allowed cloning again, they could make it work. They wouldn't need to give up all their exclusivity. They could even just have other companies target markets they currently ignore (and they currently ignore a lot of markets).

If they do it right, it could be great. Apple hasn't made any major braindead decisions in the past 8 years, so I don't know why everyone assumes they would do it wrong.

Apple already made baby steps into the worls of 3rd party programs. It's called the 'Made for Ipod' program. If they can work out a deal with some major PC OEM manufactures, and 3rd party manufacturers and come up with a good certification program, licensing OS/X may well work this time. But initially they will need to choose major players, who can afford good R&D for their products. Would that bite into their hardware profits? Not sure, maybe. But profits in software would surge dramatically with minimal extra cost.

"Start with the Mac Pro. The dual Core 2 Extreme processors inside aren't anything special, but the industrial design is breathtaking."

Has this guy ever written an article that was factually correct? His opinions are usually pretty inflammatory too but worse is that he invariable gets some technical item wrong and bases some conclusion on it.

Just for the record, the Mac Pro is Core 2 Xeons formerly known as Woodcrest. Extreme is for the Core 2 Duo Conroes.

Repeat after me:

"The loss in hardware profits would NOT be made up by the gain in OS X profits."

Keep saying that until it comes naturally.

Source:
http://daringfireball.net/2006/04/asinine_and_or_risky_ideas

Licensing is the only way Apple will gain more than marginal marketshare because the crowd that buys Macs buys quality and design, and that ain't a big crowd. Marketshare on the Mac side is the only way AAPL will grow out of the $50-$70 range in the next 3 years (barring some new "iPod" fad in a new market).

But that's not my gripe here... You guys are all smoking Jobs' butt-crack, which is fine. My gripe is that Louderback may have some severe medical problems. If his back is making more noise than the rest of our backs, he might have a herniated disk or even a cracked vertebrae. He should see a back surgeon, not a chiropractor. Some people don't know the difference. Back surgeons actually have medical degrees, while chiropractors make their credentials with Print Shop. On the plus side, his name isn't Jim Louderpenis. I wonder... would you take that problem to a urologist?

I've always been against the idea of Mac clones because I figured it would hurt Apple's bottom line and eventually force them out of business. But now that they've shown they can compete with the likes of Dell on hardware prices, maybe it's time to take the risk. They could probably have an arrangement where the OS would only run on company X's higher end machines, and lock out the build-your-own option, just to test the waters. I wouldn't buy one, but some business types might.

I should add that I don't ever expect this to happen.

And Jim Louderback is still a tool...

Quote

He also wrote: "I wonder whether Apple realizes how much Windows angst is out in the market. Forget the failed Power Computing experiment from the mid-nineties. Now is the time for Apple to do OS licensing right.

If people are feeling so much Windows angst then they should just buy Macs. Period.

I found this slightly old 11.2K pre-iPod by: Bryan Chaffin which I found a few months back with the help of lots of 'googling' mainly for my PC owning friends that want to keep their WinBox and just buy OS X and install it. I couldn't make them understand why Apple doesn't do this and no matter how I worded it, I never seemed to satisfy them with a good explanation. Well in my limited information gathering abilities I came up with not one but 2 great links to satisfy them. After that I didn't have to get a case of cheese to go with their PC Wine! How many different ways can you tell 'em if you want to run OS X legally & w/o a hack you "MUST BUY APPLE HARDWARE". But now with the Intel switch they began a new wine of "now since OS X is on Intel why can't I just install it on my PC? It should work, right? I mean you can run Windoze on a Mac now so turn about is fair play!" I suggest that this should be passed along to those less informed...
No OS X On Intel Part II: The Hardware Reality by: Bryan Chaffin
November 22nd, 2000
http://www.themacobserver.com/columns/thebackpage/2000/20001122.shtml
STEVE JOBS THE GENUINE ARTICLE ‘Jobs I’ve Known’by Mike Evangelist
"The so-called ‘reality distortion field’ is not magic and it’s not an accident"...
http://writersblocklive.com/?p=3

Anyone who thinks cloning will be good for AAPL doesn’t grasp these simple facts: 1) Apple will make far more money selling Mac’s than selling MacOS X licenses, and 2) now that Mac’s are competitively priced and can run Windoze too, there simply is no advantage (for Apple) to license MacOS X in order to grow their market share.

It won’t happen, even if hell does freeze over.

jim louderback is a s**thead.. he always annoyed the piss out of me, even back when i used to watch him on zdtv, when i was 12 years old.

..and anyone who thinks that licensing mac os x to vanilla pee-cees is a good idea doesn't get the picture. apple makes high-end computers for a niche market. the point of apple is to make the best computers that it possibly can for it's customers, not necessarily world domination.

i'd be much more content if apple had a 10% market share than a 50% market share, because that means that they're specializing, rather than trying to be everything to everybody.

The main reason the previous cloning experiment failed before was because the clones did not add any value to the Apple systems, did not increase the numbers of mac users and only stole existing customers from Apple because they priced the OS to the clone makers too low for the real cost of the OS to Apple. Also, Apple was to blame in not being very nimble and couldn't compete with the clones in getting new systems out there with the newest chips available. I think Apple is a more nimble company now and could compete better but I don't think the dynamics are any different. I think the clone makers would only steal customers from Apple and would not expand significantly the mac os using universe and therefore the increased os usage would not offset the decrease in hardware profits.

Neal

Quote

nealg wrote:
The main reason the previous cloning experiment failed before was because the clones did not add any value to the Apple systems, did not increase the numbers of mac users and only stole existing customers from Apple because they priced the OS to the clone makers too low for the real cost of the OS to Apple. Also, Apple was to blame in not being very nimble and couldn't compete with the clones in getting new systems out there with the newest chips available. I think Apple is a more nimble company now and could compete better but I don't think the dynamics are any different. I think the clone makers would only steal customers from Apple and would not expand significantly the mac os using universe and therefore the increased os usage would not offset the decrease in hardware profits.

Neal

Funny, I just dug up some old MacWorld magazines the other day and remembered why I wanted a clone so bad. The clones were killed because they were much better than the Macs. They had 3d accelerators, bigger HD's, sometimes faster busses and were way cheaper.

I don't think this would be the case now since Macs are really quite competative w/ the market. I still get mad when I spent all my lawn mowing money on a 7200/75 - those were the bad years.

[quote="admin"]Admitting "I've never been the biggest Apple booster," PC Magazine's Jim Louderback admitted in a column published Thursday that he likes the 17-inch Intel iMac he recently bought and that "some of Apple's recent moves leave me even more impressed."

http://www.macobserver.com/article/2006/08/31.8.shtml[/quote}

I must be dreaming. I've never heard Jim Louderback say anything nice about Apple or it's operating system and hardware. However the clones are a bad idea Jim and I don't think Apple is ever going to go in that direction ever again because it's not necessary.

Your right, I think Steve Balmers head did just explode. Someone pinch me so I'm sure that I'm reading this and not dreaming.

He doesn't pick words well.

Apple doesn't "ignore" markets as if they're overlooked, they choose to walk away from them on purpose.

Niche player. They like that role.

Makes lots of cash.

[quote="horvatic"]

Quote

admin wrote:
Admitting "I've never been the biggest Apple booster," PC Magazine's Jim Louderback admitted in a column published Thursday that he likes the 17-inch Intel iMac he recently bought and that "some of Apple's recent moves leave me even more impressed."

http://www.macobserver.com/article/2006/08/31.8.shtml[/quote}

I must be dreaming. I've never heard Jim Louderback say anything nice about Apple or it's operating system and hardware. However the clones are a bad idea Jim and I don't think Apple is ever going to go in that direction ever again because it's not necessary.

Your right, I think Steve Balmers head did just explode. Someone pinch me so I'm sure that I'm reading this and not dreaming.

i actually did hear him say something nice about the original fruity ibook.. he said that the yo-yo power adapter was "cute".. but aside from that.. you're right.. lmao..

Quote

Bosco wrote:
Licensing is the only way Apple will gain more than marginal marketshare because the crowd that buys Macs buys quality and design, and that ain't a big crowd. Marketshare on the Mac side is the only way AAPL will grow out of the $50-$70 range in the next 3 years (barring some new "iPod" fad in a new market).

But that's not my gripe here...

First of all, it's not about "market share". Apple doesn't need market share, it needs raw sales. It can lose raw overall share, and still make money if the overall market is growing. However, it _is_ gaining market share, which is good in so much as it draws profits, but again, it's not about market share....

... your rather immature and adolescent remarks aside.

-Jon

Quote

JonGl wrote:
First of all, it's not about "market share". Apple doesn't need market share, it needs raw sales. It can lose raw overall share, and still make money if the overall market is growing. However, it _is_ gaining market share, which is good in so much as it draws profits, but again, it's not about market share....

... your rather immature and adolescent remarks aside.

Jon, the computer market isn't growing very fast any more. Not enough for AAPL to sit back, be satisfied with the share it has, and expect the Mac side of the business to pull its weight and reach the Munster/Wu target prices in the next 3 years. AAPL's P/E is already way higher than anyone can reasonably justify. AAPL would have to be hovering around $45 to have a reasonable P/E now. People who are willing to buy the Apple brand in computer price ranges is a small group. It won't grow.

It's like good sneakers. I bought my Mom some Nike Air Force Ones for Christmas last year. I spent $200 at a sneaker show and bought some rare samples. Retail, they'd still be $90-ish. OK, so Mom typically wears Kirkland specials she gets at Costco for $13. But she can appreciate nice things. The other day, she told me that the Nikes were just way more comfortable for a long day of shopping and she never noticed before until she got these. So I asked her if she was gonna become a sneaker freak like I've become, and she said that $90 for shoes was still kinda steep even though they were so much better. That's where Apple is now. Yes, Mac prices are competitive, but if you just need something to run Word and surf the net and HP has a $800 complete package at Office Depot, why would you spend $1100+ on a Mac? Apple is leaving money on the table by not finding some way to have a chance at $30 or $40 on that sale. The only way to get there is licensing. This is way different than $200 - $300 for an iPod. More people will pay a 20% - 30% quality premium at lower price points for really cool things like an iPod.

My rather immature and adolescent remarks aside...

Do we really want that many people to switch? Be it clones or original Macs?

I don't think so. Apple can gain market share in the consumer world since Microsoft is loosing its grip on people, but I hope it does not grow beyond 10% or the quality is going to be lost in favour of mass production of cheap clones.

No way Jose!

Cheers

Don't compare the 90s' cloning to any future cloning. There's NO WAY it would be the same. Why? For one thing, because Apple makes good hardware now! Back in the 90s, Apple's offerings just didn't hold up to the cloners' in any way. They were slower, they were much more expensive, and heck, their product line was even more confusing. Their hardware sucked, and the sales showed it. They had the choice to either kill cloning, or kill their hardware division, because they couldn't compete.

But things are different now. Apple makes great hardware. Their prices are right. Their lineups are appealing and easy to understand.

More importantly, Apple would not need to license OS X for companies to compete directly with them, like they did in the 90s. They would let other companies handle the markets Apple doesn't touch — i.e., basic, cheap machines. I can get an entire Windows system, monitor and all, for less than the cost of JUST the Mac Mini (with no monitor, keyboard, or mouse).

Is that a comparable PC? NO, of course not. If it were, it would be just as expensive as the Mini. But it's definitely good enough for a lot of people. It doesn't make sense to try to sell those people more than they need when everyone else is selling them ONLY what they need at half the price. That's why Apple doesn't sell to them; they ignore them completely.

I understand that Apple doesn't want to 'tarnish' their image with bottom-of-the-barrel products. That's not what they do. They make feature-rich machines. So why not let some other company sell Macs to people who are not in Apple's market?

Everyone is assuming that any clone sold would mean one less Apple Mac sold. That's a flawed assumption. That's close to the way it happened in the 90s, but I've already explained why things are different now.

How many people who are in the market for a bottom-of-the-line PC do you think say to themselves "hey, I think I'll pay twice as much for features I don't need or want!" I'd guess zero. That's the market cloners would address, and it would be in Apple's power as a licensor to make sure it's the ONLY market they'd address. That way, their own sales won't be cannibalized.

Licensing the Mac OS does not mean giving up control.

[quote="JonGl"][quote="Bosco"]it's not about market share....
... your rather immature and adolescent remarks aside.[/quote]

Not sure why that attack is necessary, but I am one that is disagreeing with you completely. Apple is a public company with lots of shareholders. Growth and gaining marketshare is an absolutely must to make the shareholders happy and a rising stock price . If they will grow less than the average growth rate in teh market, the stock will go down. Apple is not a non for profit business as some people always seem to think. It is a business, in a very competitive market even. Their iPod execution is very well (even that some think new iPods are delayed) and the Mac execution is back on track after some very bad years. And those years the stock was certainly under pressure.

Quote

Mikuro wrote:
They wouldn't need to give up all their exclusivity. They could even just have other companies target markets they currently ignore (and they currently ignore a lot of markets).

If they do it right, it could be great. Apple hasn't made any major braindead decisions in the past 8 years, so I don't know why everyone assumes they would do it wrong.

Actually, when Apple originally experimented with cloning the idea was to do exactly as you suggest: open up markets that Apple normally did not compete, such as the bottom end market. The problem was companies like Power Computing started building more innovative Macs then Apple was manufacturing. Moreover the competition was charging less money.

In my view, cloning failed because there was no compelling reason to buy a Mac from Apple. If you wanted a Mac by Apple it was 1) going to cost you more, 2) you were going to get less, and 3) and the hardware was just about the same as the hardware found on all the Macs put out by its competitors. Apple killed the clones only because the competitor built Macs were taking market share from Apple, not expanding the Mac user base.


Nonetheless, cloning could work today. Apple has very innovative hardware, and it could make sure it always had the fastest Macs if it kept control over approving its clone partners' hardware design, graphic card, and processor specs. The clones would have to less innovative then Apple, and less powerful. That would potentially open up the low end market that Apple does not compete in. For instance, a competitor could build Macs using Pentium processors. Right now they are really cheap, but do not perform anywhere near as well as the core Duos. The hardware could be just a beige box.


A final thing: Apple is not a "they", Apple is an it. So when Apple does something, it is always "it" did such and such, as opposed to "they" did such and such.

Quote

Bosco wrote:
Licensing is the only way Apple will gain more than marginal marketshare because the crowd that buys Macs buys quality and design, and that ain't a big crowd. Marketshare on the Mac side is the only way AAPL will grow out of the $50-$70 range in the next 3 years (barring some new "iPod" fad in a new market).

Actually, Apple already controls 20% to 25% of the consumer $1,000+ PC market in the US. Apple's success is one of the reasons Dell is facing hard times. If market share was the answer Gateway would have found a way to be profitable. Gateway is siezing share left and right at retail under the Gateway and eMachines nameplates. What has moved Apple higher is the iPod, not the Mac. Most analysts ignore the mac and focus on Apple as if the company was nothing but an iPod play.

Apple needs to continue to gain ground in its primary consumer market, the $1,000+ tier which is growning more slowly that the budget PC market. Thus Apple can see growth even if the company's market share remains the same.

Apple's success is found in its total yield per consumer. The retail stores are showing an increasing revenue and earning yield per customer (Mac, iPod, .Mac, AppleCare,etc.). In general Apple sells more per retail customer than any other PC maker. Yield per customer is more important IMHO than small gains in market share.

The iPod has given Apple economic cover while the company completes the Intel transition. Apple should report a nice increase in education share this back-to-school season. What will move AAPL higher is expectations for a strong Christmas quarter for the iPod and further evidence the halo effect can be sustained.

Whether or not the hefty hardware requirements and reported retail prices for Vista provides a b enefit to Apple remains to be seen. I say Vista's high price and hefty hardware requirements will help boost Mac sales. It reduces the opportunity cost for someone to switch to the Mac.

Quote

Bosco wrote:
My gripe is that Louderback may have some severe medical problems. If his back is making more noise than the rest of our backs, he might have a herniated disk or even a cracked vertebrae. He should see a back surgeon, not a chiropractor. Some people don't know the difference. Back surgeons actually have medical degrees, while chiropractors make their credentials with Print Shop.

Bosco, you tend to make great points, but then you say ignorant things like this and throw all credibility out the window.


Do you think it's healthy to slice through tissue to get to a joint that was simply out of alignment?

What do you call the surgeon who graduated dead last in med school? (Answer: Doctor, just like the rest of them. Having a diploma on the wall from a "real" school doesn't guarantee anything.)

Ever wonder why so many people whom surgeons slice open to repair their carpal tunnel syndrome often have recurring symptoms weeks or months later? It's not because they actually repeated the injury in such short time. It's because the injury was never healed in the first place. It was only made worse by slicing perfectly healthy tissue. Most cases of "carpal tunnel syndrome" are actually just pinched nerves near the shoulder. If you don't believe me spend just 2 or 3 minutes with a competent massage therapist and ask him/her to pinch that nerve for you. They'll squeeze near your shoulder and you will experience unbelievable pain near your carpal tunnel (you'll likely be surprised that you can't feel anything but superficial pressure at your shoulder; no actual pain there to diagnose what's wrong). You can slice and dice the skin, muscles, and nerves down there all you want; it won't fix the injury. The problem is that doctors rarely grasp that pain is not always the best indicator of the geography of a problem. "Where does it hurt?" logic is moronic if you assume that in all cases the pain site is the same as the injury. Which is what makes your comparison funny. If every business worked the way your favored surgeon does then lack of sales would always be seen as insufficient advertising, and they would never look deep enough to see that it's really a problem with the product, the distribution, etc.


I've been to surgeons for things that require surgery. And I've been to chiropractors and massage therapists for things that don't. I'm afraid I've failed at coming up with an analogy to put in perspective the idiocy of discrediting the entire practice of chiropractic medicine in favor of surgery in all cases. If only I were as clever as you...


Seriously, you seem intelligent when you stick to the subject. But when you wander you really come across as an idiot, ironically in your attempts to paint Louderback and others as such.

But if you put more trust in the piece of paper hanging on the wall better than actual ability to solve the problem then I don't see why you think you're any better off than an analyst who thinks that a shiny enclosure is what sets Apple apart.


- Jon

Quote

Jonkun227 wrote:
Bosco, you tend to make great points, but then you say ignorant things like this and throw all credibility out the window.

Do you think it's healthy to slice through tissue to get to a joint that was simply out of alignment?

On the next episode of Bosco Points Out the Obvious, Bosco snidely debunks Scientology, perpetual motion machines, and The Great Pumpkin.

Concluding this episode however, Wikipedia says that There is evidence both for and against spinal manipulation, a technique used by chiropractors, in the treatment of acute low back pain, tension headaches and certain musculoskeletal issues. There are no objective controlled trials with definitive conclusions for or against chiropractic claims concerning other health benefits.

Your example about Carpal Tunnel Syndrome usually being a pinched nerve in the shoulder... Oh boy. Look, I dated a massage therapist once, and I can tell you that there was nothing better than a deep tissue massage after a long run to relax the muscles and just slow my mind and body down. The scented candles don't hurt either. But by your logic (which if you Google for "Carpal Tunnel Syndrome" you'll find is not supported by any medical literature), I could cure a sprained ankle by wearing boxers instead of briefs.

Hey, if it makes you feel good, I'm all for it. I just hope for your sake you can tell the difference between when you want to feel good and when you need medical attention. That's all.