Featured Article: Podcast - Apple Weekly Report #125: iPhone Expansion, NBC and Zune, Apple's Eco-stance
The Back Page - Rob Enderle On Mac vs. Linux
by - June 7th, 2004
It's time to fire up the old Enderle Crusher. Rob Enderle, fresh from being humiliated in our heads-up debate, has penned a new piece concerning Apple. Titled "Linux vs. Apple: An Uncomfortable Battle," Mr. Enderle's goal is to look at how and why Apple and Linux are competing with each other in today's market. The problem, as usual, is that many of his premises are wrong. For instance, he makes a big point of saying that Apple's software sales subsidize the company's hardware.
Both Red Hat and Novell are sending messages that they are designing new user interfaces based on the Mac OS. While their stated target is Microsoft, the collateral damage from the developments, much like it was with Sun, will probably be Apple. Apple has been subsidizing its relatively expensive hardware with software, so the cost disadvantage that Sun enjoyed would seem to be dramatically less for Apple. But that might not be the case. While much is said about the success of the Mac OS X , the speculation remains that the majority of Apple's installed base has stayed with its older hardware and has not migrated to the new operating system.
In addition, the feedback is that most of Apple's servers -- which also are subsidized by software -- are running Linux today. While many of the buyers indicate publicly that they plan to run the Mac OS at some future time, currently they are not, which showcases the problem of software subsidies if there is another platform that will run on that hardware. People will buy the hardware but not buy the software that supports it, a phenomenon that could do incredibly ugly things to Apple's margins even if it does result in a dramatic increase in sales for Apple hardware.
That's right. This trend could actually result in more Apple hardware sold. But because the corporate buyers are loading something else after buying Apple hardware, Apple's margins will collapse.
He's got it precisely and exactly backwards. Apple's hardware sales subsidize the company's software, not the other way around. That's how Apple can charge less for the Mac OS than Microsoft charges for Windows, despite having a user base that is a couple of orders of magnitude smaller than Microsoft's. The same is true for products like iLife, for which Apple asks far less than competing products on the Windows side. Mac OS X Server is also far, far less expensive than Microsoft's server packages, again, because Apple knows that it will be selling hardware to run the software.
He just couldn't be more wrong. In fact, I find it difficult to understand how Mr. Enderle could misunderstand something so basic.
Mr. Enderle also suggests that Linux providers will be able to successfully copy Apple's GUI, and that Apple will have a difficult time stopping them from doing so. From Mr. Enderle:
The most common response I get from Apple advocates when I mention this threat is that Apple will sue the Linux providers. Given that the user interfaces could fall under the GPL , a lawsuit strategy will be problematic. We have only to look at SCO to see just how problematic this will become.
Unlike SCO, Apple has a well-funded marketing organization and could be far more effective at painting Linux advocates as communists and thieves. But this could get incredibly ugly. Apple is seeking patents to protect its interface better, but its litigation against Microsoft a decade ago didn't go well, and Microsoft will clearly dispute these patent attempts and make it difficult even if Linux supporters don't initially dispute these patents.
Except that, stunningly, he has it wrong. Apple sued Microsoft for copyright infringement back in the late 1980s, not patent violations, making his comparison moot, at best. Indeed, as John Kheit, our own Devil's Advocate, has explained, the point of Apple's new patent grab for GUI elements is so that it won't have another failed lawsuit should someone decide to rip of either the iPod or Mac GUI.
The same can be said for SCO's lawsuit against the Linux community; most of SCO's suit centers around copyright infringement, not patent violations. It's simply not an appropriate comparison.
Furthermore, I will believe in a successful rip-off of the Mac's GUI when I see it. This is not to say that the open-source community can't come up with a great GUI, or make Linux as easy to use as Mac OS X, it's just that I will view that potentiality as a threat to the Mac's lead in those areas when I actually see it.
When, and if, it comes, Apple will face a new challenge, just as would be the case if Microsoft ever made a good GUI. After all, how many Mac users reading this would cling to the Mac if Windows was actually better? Many, for sure, but not this one, and I think such would be the case for others. My point, however, is that this isn't the case, has never been the case, and frankly isn't likely in the near-future.
There is an even more important theme in all this, though, that I think bears mentioning; I believe there is no "Apple vs. Linux." Yes, there might be the occasional specific battle here and there, but in general, the real war is an issue of Microsoft vs. Apple and Linux. I believe very strongly that a healthy Linux platform helps out the Mac platform, and vice versa.
It's all about mind share. If people think of the Mac as the only alternative to Microsoft, then the Mac remains an outsider, and a second class citizen. Nudge that idea just a little, though, and make the Mac one of two alternatives, and you have people thinking about which one of the three is the best solution. It's a subtle issue, to be sure, but an important one. The better Linux does, the better the Mac can do, too. Perhaps that's why Apple's OS X Server sales, and Xserve sales, have been increasing, even while Linux has also been doing well against Microsoft.
There's more in Mr. Enderle's full editorial, including some suggestions that Apple leave the hardware or software business, tired themes from Mr. Enderle I shattered on previous occasions. That said, his closing sentence is one that Mr. Enderle and I can agree on: "Apple's path is about to become vastly more interesting."
began using Apple computers in 1983 in a high school BASIC programming class. He started using Macs in 1990 when the Kinko's guy taught him how to use Aldus PageMaker, finally buying a Power Computing Power 100 in 1995. Today, Bryan is the Editor of The Mac Observer, and has contributed to the print versions of MacAddict and MacFormat (UK).
You can send your comments directly to him, or you can also post your comments below.
Most Recent Columns From The Back Page
- $5 WiFi Routers...With a Catch - June 27th
- Boot Camp Means More Mac Users - April 13th
- Rob "Wrong Again" Enderle Peers Into Apple's Windows Future - April 12th
The Back Page Archives
Observer Comments
Mon Jun 07, 2004 2:46 pm Subject: Linux Is The Mac Death Star
Mon Jun 07, 2004 2:52 pm Subject: Linux copying Mac OS UI
Mon Jun 07, 2004 4:21 pm Subject: Another anti-Enderle page
http://enderle.iwethey.org/
BTW I claim the Divide and Conquer post above - messed up the log-in
Mon Jun 07, 2004 4:41 pm Subject: Article mentioning user pref for OSX v Linux
Here's a report "from the street" that indicates Linux users, in the end, finding OSX "just works"
http://www.seattleweekly.com/features/0422/040602_news_microsoft.php
Mon Jun 07, 2004 4:52 pm Subject: Nothing but speculation
Has anyone else noticed that many of Enderle's articles are nothing more than poor attempts at fortune-telling? With every article, this so-called tech journalist sounds more like a gypsy with a stack of tarot cards gazing at an old Western serial:
"Maybe Apple will do this, or maybe it will do that. One thing's for sure, it's going to do something! What will the future hold? (I just don't know!) Stay tuned and find out..."
How embarassing.
Jon
Mon Jun 07, 2004 5:32 pm Subject: Does He call them or do they call Him?
How does Enderle get quoted so much?
Does he release press releases or do reporters call him up.
Note that his background is marketing not journalism or any aspect of technology.
The really scary thing is a lot of "news" is placed this way. Especially consumer technology or health related. ... even on TMO, I suspect.
If you ever read about a new disease or condition, for example, you can bet that an ad campaign for a new drug will start soon. 
Mon Jun 07, 2004 7:02 pm Subject: "Steaming pile of ..." at least grows grass. Ende
Tue Jun 08, 2004 1:25 am Subject: It's called FACT CHECKING
Yuk.. I could not believe reading this how badly Mr. E has missed the boat. Is this real? I mean I am no professinal writer, but if I'm gonna write an opinion I state it as such... If I try writing facts then I try to check that what I write ahas st least SOME MINOR BASIS IN FACT!!!!
Sheesh...
So does this mean it;s another death knell??
From the hot 85º summer in Fairbanks, Alaska
Tue Jun 08, 2004 7:37 pm Subject: Let's just call Enderle "Mr. FUD"
(Hi, me again) =
To sum up teh thread, I'd say we've determind that Enderle is a paid agent of Microsoft's propaganda machine. As we have seen for so long the M$ hegemony is highly dependent on spreading Fear, Uncertaily and Doubt among the masses (and people in corporate lemming-like environments) They used to say "no one ever got fired for buying IBM" now it is M$ no matter what the cost. Even in the 1950s anyone who knew anything about computers bought Univac. IBM would only sell to accountants who were naturally risk-averse* and so susceptable to FUD.
M$ took over IBM's playbook for maintaining monopoly.
Mr. FUD is a willing and professional agent.
* I do think I should mention that software development IS a very risky endeavor and being "risk averse" is quite sensible when purchasing systems on which an organization will depend. Now that the field is much more mature, moving to true non-proprietary standards and Open Source is clearly less risky.
(will this be my last post to this thread? What, Me Worry?
Wed Jun 09, 2004 11:02 am Subject: Enderle article-5th Grade Debate Team Member to Rob Enderle:
Enderle Sayz: Apple subsidizes hardware with software sales, but people aren't buying Apple software because they're running Linux instead.
Enderle Meanz: Don't buy Apple hardware because their business model is doomed to failure.
Enderle Sayz: Linux will soon have the look, feel and ease of use of the Mac.
Enderle Meanz: Don't buy Linux because Apple will sue them out of business.
And where does he get his numbers about running Linux on Mac hardware?
Fri Jun 11, 2004 9:09 am Subject: KDE: a decent enough UI
Heh, will I be the only Mac user/developer here who prefers the KDE interface? (or at least the version which ships with the current Knoppix distro.)
A very, if not intuitive, then easy to learn interface, which allows for much faster work flow; there's a lot Apple could, and should, learn from it.
Just a pity the rest of the system is too buggy to be used as a primary work system...
Fri Jun 11, 2004 10:40 am Subject: Rebuttal to 'Guest'
'Guest', I did at one point seriously consider dumping Macs as my primary work system in favour of Linux...
Obviously feeling my indecision, at this point, the Linux system helpfully lost two complete days worth of work without trace, for absolutely no reason - the files hadn't been edited, re-saved, moved or copied - no new software had been installed on the system, and no new hardware had been connected - the system didn't even have a network connection to blame the minor threat of Linux worms or viruses on.
That is not a sign of a mature OS.
Yes, I know you can't use a single incident to extrapolate that Linux is always that buggy, but I'd prefer software I pay money for and which works, against free (as in beer) software which has no central oversight, and which may f*ck up my system in new and novel ways...
If Linux does win a string of victories against MS in the home, what will be the driving force of the Linux contributors?
What will drive innovation on Linux?
At the moment it seems to be a "Kill The Redmond Beast" mentality; but as soon as somebody has a decent, marketable, concept, I doubt they'll be uploading it to SourceForge...
Thu Jul 08, 2004 12:43 pm Subject:
I can't believe he compared Apple to Logitech 
Could they be more different types of companies? Don't get me wrong, I love Logitech, using their mouse/keyboard right now. But Apple becoming like them, I don't think so.
As far as Apple and Linux are concerned, well, they should be good friends, and have very little to fight with each other about. Even Windows should get along in some ways (but not MANY of the ways Microsoft does business). I firmly believe that EVERY OS has it's own advantage in some way, and their isn't any one that should take over the whole market. They all need to work together.
Thu Jul 08, 2004 12:54 pm Subject: Re: Linux Is The Mac Death Star
Just saw this:
QuoteAnonymous wrote:
Even Bryan Chaffin in this article said he'd ditch his Mac hardware if MS ever made a good OS. MS probably won't ever make a good OS, but Linux is already here. Now there's no reason to get gouged on grossly overpriced buggy Apple hardware.
Actually, I said that I would use Windows if it was better, not just "good." I use the Mac because it is the best computer for the things I do. Just wanted to set that record straight, as the Guest had misquoted me.
Bryan
Editor
TMO
Thu Jul 08, 2004 3:17 pm Subject: Re: Unix (Not only Linux)
QuoteAnonymous wrote:
WHY so harsh against linux??
MOST of the enterprise tools/apps that MacOSX is now using are open source project, for example; Apache, Samba, etc... Those things thrived because of open source OS, namely LINUX and BSD, WHY SO HARSH?? Go to the developer section of Apple.com and compare THEIR open source developments to the open source programs that they are using!!
DID apple develop them?? If they are that good then WHY LAUNCH THE OSX as OPENSOURCE????
Apple and the open source community have become quite the bedfellows, and I'm not sure how well this is known. A previous comment asked 'Where are the Apple applications ported to Linux?' That's not Apple's contribution. Apple does what the open source community (distinct from the Free Software folks) have wanted - they're using it as a base, building on top of it, and in return subsidizing the development. Apple hired Jordan Hubbard, one of the core developers of the FreeBSD project, for just this reason, and Apple is currently contributing fixes to, at the least, the GCC compiler and the KHTML rendering engine, both of which they use internally. I would not be surprised if Apple developers are also occasional contributors to other projects such as Apache.
Quote
MOST of you are just home users..
Not exactly true. A number of people here use the Macintosh in their professional work. The perception that the Mac is just for home use is a persistent myth.
Quote
BTW, true linux users use the SHELL, not the GUI.. we are not on the level here..
And that is the attitude that if allowed to prevail would keep Linux away from the masses forever. I'm not sure if that's what you want, but I don't think saying a GUI user can't be a 'true linux user' is the way to people's hearts. I'll be honest here; I'm typing this reply on a Linux machine, running KDE, in the Konqueror web browser. I'm not sitting at a terminal running lynx. However, I am certainly capable of working in the shell if I so choose. The point is, I don't choose to for most tasks. Right tool for the right job. Apple seems to have gotten that part right.
To come back to your first point, I think some of the harshness between Linux users and Mac users comes down to misperception. The more zealot-like Linux users (the ones who think that Linux shall rule over all, and such) and the Free Software people like to beat up on Apple for its past actions, or for its current actions, and the Mac people feel compelled to respond. (The same thing happens when Windows zealots beat up on Linux.) I think most 'in-the-know' Mac users are quite aware of the debt their OS of choice owes to the generosity of the BSD programmers in particular, but certainly to open-source advocates in general.
Oh, and one clarifying note: The entirety of OS X is not open source. It is composed of both open-source (mostly FreeBSD-based) components and Apple-proprietary components.
Jason