[an0therdumbsn]

http://www.fortune.com/fortune/fastf...ml?promoid=cnn
this is a very scary thing
mac running on intel is one thing, but on a ugly black dell box.

[babyjenk5]

You know what's even more scary? I used to think that the black Dell box was actually good looking and bought one as my desktop for college.

That is, until I found myself in an Apple store.

[Horsepoo!!!]

He'd like to.

[CaptainHaddock]

This is the same Michael Dell who said a while back that Apple should close up shop, sell their assets, and distribute them to the shareholders.

What Mr. Dell really means with this latest announcement is that he'd like to goad Microsoft into giving Dell a better deal on Windows.

Ugh, who on earth would want Dell engineering and quality for an Apple computer?

[TheTraveller]

It sure would be a good way to drive Apple out of the computer hardware business, that's for sure. Then Apple really could close up shop, sell the assets, and distribute the proceeds to shareholder, thus fullfilling Mike's prophecy.

[Wiskedjak]

If Apple were smart, they let Dell market it's machines with MacOS as an option. There's very little money in computer hardware unless you adopt a Dell-like business model

[Tyre MacAdmin]

It's a better gui... it's a great idea. Maybe it will happen. After all, Apple did let companies make PPC clones just a few years back.

[Wiskedjak]

The only problem is that MacOS on Dells would be almost as unstable as Windosw on Dells

[hyperb0le]

Originally Posted by Tyler McAdams

After all, Apple did let companies make PPC clones just a few years back.

And it almost killed Apple. It's not gonna happen. End of story.

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by Wiskedjak

If Apple were smart, they let Dell market it's machines with MacOS as an option. There's very little money in computer hardware unless you adopt a Dell-like business model

What are you talking about? Apple is making enormous profits in hardware. I said it once, I said it a million times: Apple Is A Hardware Company.

[Wiskedjak]

Originally Posted by Chuckit

Apple is making enormous profits in hardware.

Only because Apple hardware is so expensive.

[turtle777]

Originally Posted by Wiskedjak

Only because Apple hardware is so expensive.

Duh. And your point is ?

-t

[CaptainHaddock]

Apple makes money because their hardware is somewhat expensive.

Their hardware is expensive because people are willing to pay lots for it.

People are willing to pay lots for it because:
1. It's more secure, stable, and user-friendly than alternatives.
2. It looks much nicer than alternatives.
3. It has better software than alternatives (in many cases).
4. You can only get it from Apple.
5. You get Apple's industry-leading support, instead of Dell's crappy support.

Now, if Apple lets Dell make and sell Macs, they're losing advantages 1, 2, 4 and 5. I fail to see the business sense in that.

[Wiskedjak]

Originally Posted by CaptainHaddock

Apple makes money because their hardware is somewhat expensive.

Their hardware is expensive because people are willing to pay lots for it.

People are willing to pay lots for it because:
1. It's more secure, stable, and user-friendly than alternatives.
2. It looks much nicer than alternatives.
3. It has better software than alternatives (in many cases).
4. You can only get it from Apple.
5. You get Apple's industry-leading support, instead of Dell's crappy support.

Now, if Apple lets Dell make and sell Macs, they're losing advantages 1, 2, 4 and 5. I fail to see the business sense in that.

1. It is the OS that is more secure, stable, and user-friendly than alternatives, not the hardware
4. Apple is not the only place to purchase Apple products (although Apple certainly seems to be making moves towards such a business model). Dell, on the other hand, is the only place where you can get Dells.

So really, you're only losing advantages 2 and 5, and when you factor in all of the problems Apple hardware seem to exhibit of late, you're really only losing 2.

[Chuckit]

What does Apple gain from losing their main source of revenue?

[msuper69]

Michael Dell's chances of selling Dell PCs with OS X are about the same as a snowball's in hell.

[Scooterboy]

Originally Posted by Wiskedjak

1. It is the OS that is more secure, stable, and user-friendly than alternatives, not the hardware
4. Apple is not the only place to purchase Apple products (although Apple certainly seems to be making moves towards such a business model). Dell, on the other hand, is the only place where you can get Dells.

So really, you're only losing advantages 2 and 5, and when you factor in all of the problems Apple hardware seem to exhibit of late, you're really only losing 2.

I always thought that it's the tight hardware-software integration that responsible for the stability.

[RonnieoftheRose]

Dellboy wants to flog everything cheap.

[RonnieoftheRose]

If hardware sales suffer but new iPod generations keep going through the roof then they'll make more money from licensing OS X to third parties than their computer range.

Apple could do it this way in those circumstances.

-Only select companies can license OS X. Those would be companies like Dell and Sony.

-All machines sold by Dell, Sony, etc that run OS X will be designed by Apple with part of the profit going back to them along with the OS license.

-Apple's hardware range will be iLife devices that work directly with iLife apps. In other words, like the iPod did with iTunes they could come out with a digital camera for iPhoto, an HD camera for iMovie, an amp set and keyboard for Garageband, etc and capitalise on iLife hardware sales. Third party devices will still work but without automatic synching.

-The Pro apps like Final Cut Pro, etc will still work with all manner of cameras, keyboards, etc.

Apple will of course be accused of being a monopoly but since third party devices will still work manually (drag and drop files or use another utlity for capturing video and photo) they could get by.

Another benefit of licensing OS X and getting it out there to the masses is that the Pro apps would see an increase in sales too. There's a greater profit margin to be made there than hardware sales.

[Anubis IV]

Originally Posted by Wiskedjak

1. It is the OS that is more secure, stable, and user-friendly than alternatives, not the hardware

As has already been stated, the hardware is a MAJOR contributor to the stability and user-friendliness (Apple computers just LOOK more inviting) of Macs.

Originally Posted by Wiskedjak

4. Apple is not the only place to purchase Apple products (although Apple certainly seems to be making moves towards such a business model). Dell, on the other hand, is the only place where you can get Dells.

Apple Authorized Dealers still have to get their Apple computers from somewhere since they're sure not making those boxes themsevles in their garage. Where do you think they come from, and who do you think still gets the lion's share of the profit? Essentially, you can only get Mac computers from Apple. There might be a middleman, but it came from Apple and the money trail goes back to Apple.

You look at the Windows market though and brand name hardware is much less important since they all run the same OS, they just do it with varying degrees of capability. Building your own box is a great option there, so brand loyalty is at an all-time low. If Dell could get Apple to sign on, Apple would be signing away its cash cow (hardware sales, excluding the iPod, account for around 40% of Apple's profit) and Dell would get a feature that no other company, aside from Apple, could match: the Mac OS. Sure, people would switch to Mac OS more quickly than ever, perhaps, but at what cost to Apple?

Also, to counter a point made in another post, just because you see profit leveling in one area (hardware) and accelerating in another area (music/iPod) does not mean that you abandon the area that has plateaued. That'd be like suggesting that Ford stops selling its Mustang if F150 sales pick up. It makes no sense at all. Apple's hardware is making just as much profit for it (actually, more) than it was last year or the year before or the year before. Just because the music side of things has gone from about 10% of Apple's profit to around 30-35% of the profit in a year does not mean that the hardware is any less profitable than it once was. The two are unrelated to each other and should be evaluated independently of each other. It's not as if Apple is working with limited resources here. They have plenty of people to work on both, and they can afford to do so. It'd be foolish to abandon the hardware at this point. Software sales only account for around 7% of total profit (I think...not as sure on that stat, but it's somewhere down there).

It'd be foolish of Apple to do it, and Jobs would have to have his RDF at a power level WAY beyond what it was at for the Intel announcement if he wanted to pull off a move like that and make it sound like it was good business sense.

EDIT: Added a lot more about abandoning hardware sales.

[nforcer]

As much as I would like to see Apple go software-only, their hardware provides too much for the company as is. Perhaps if no one purchases Mactels I will get my wish, but I doubt that will happen.

[:XI:]

Apple could sell Macs to Dell with a little Dell logo on them. Like they do with the HP iPods.
But then, Dell would just become an Apple reseller, I don't think that would be a bad thing, do you?

[andreadeca]

i dont understand: why does everone flame dell so much?

never owned a Dell, but worked with a few and they seem OK.

do they really suck this bad?

[AssassyN]

Dell's are fine. A Dell is a Windows-based computer w/ lots of bloatware installed...just reformat and you're good. If you're not a complete moron, WinXP can be just as stable as Mac OS X. I love WinXP. I use both OS's daily and really have trouble using just one, as Windows flat out does some things better than OS X can.

But that's beside the point, I think the biggest reason Mike wants OS X on his machines is so all the losers that buy them will stop calling their tech support wanting to know what "Bonzai Buddy" is and why it won't stop popping up all over.

[bowwowman]

Dells are NOT fine, by any stretch of anyone's imagination..........
They use bottom-of-the-barrel, POS-commodity peecee crappy components just like every other mass producer does, they are ALL the same inside.......crappy mobo's, crappy gpu's, crappy windblows OS, crappy pic cards and all sorts of other crap too....

Unless, of course you consider the higher end folks like Alienware and others like them that actually put alot more than dells's 1.3ms into their decisions about which components to use.

However, as much as I DIS-like windblows, I use XP Pro everyday at work on a peecee I built from scratch with 100% TOP of the line components and it runs GREAT (hey, it was the boss's money, so why not.... )

[Rainy Day]

Originally Posted by RonnieoftheRose

If hardware sales suffer but new iPod generations keep going through the roof then they'll make more money from licensing OS X to third parties than their computer range.

That would be a very dangerous bet. Hardware sales have sustained Apple through thick and thin for nearly 30 years. The iPod is a totally different critter in a very fickle marketplace. Its revenue could dry up quickly and unexpectedly.

-Only select companies can license OS X. Those would be companies like Dell and Sony.

-All machines sold by Dell, Sony, etc that run OS X will be designed by Apple with part of the profit going back to them along with the OS license.

This is similar to the time when Apple actually did license its OS in the 90's. Like then, clones are likely to only cut into Apple's hardware sales, thus hurting Apple's profitability. That could kill Apple.

One might argue that M$ did quite well without selling hardware. If MacOS X could magically displace Windoze overnight, then the sheer volume of OS licenses probably would make up for the lost hardware revenue. While Steve Jobs has been attributed to possessing a RDF (Reality Distortion Field) and Time Machine (for traveling into the future to "steal" OS features from Billyboy Gates), it is unlikely he possesses the magic necessary to displace Windoze overnight with MacOS X licenses.

While i personally have no respect for Windoze and would think any sensible person would drop it in a heartbeat, just look at the folks posting on this forum and elsewhere who think that Windoze is actually okay. So i am not convinced that MacOS X sales would grow much faster on Dell hardware than it will on Apple hardware. But it is clear that MacOS on cheap peecees would hurt Apple hardware sales. No doubt all the folks who want to see Apple go software-only are those who want it to run on a $2 computer.

-Apple's hardware range will be iLife devices that work directly with iLife apps. In other words, like the iPod did with iTunes they could come out with a digital camera for iPhoto

Did you know Apple came out with the first digital camera? The QuickTake.

Apple came out with the first laser printer too, and even though they had a long and initially very profitable run with their LaserPrinters, they are now completely out of the printer business. At one time, printers accounted for over half of Apple's revenue.

Apple also came out with the first CD-ROM, flatbed scanner and PDA. Apple has been a very creative company, and although they have not always pursued their own inventions to the extent of the iPod, this is one reason i'd hate to see a software-only Apple. And with open-source/free-software taking off like wildfire, i doubt there is any long-term future for a software-only company. Why do you suppose M$ is now doing hardware?

Although iPods revenue is quite good now, who knows how long it will last? Computers are Apple's bread and butter. Jobs knows this.

Another benefit of licensing OS X and getting it out there to the masses is that the Pro apps would see an increase in sales too. There's a greater profit margin to be made there than hardware sales.

You make a very good point here. Of course Apple could look at achieving the same result by producing a Windoze version of these apps.

[Wiskedjak]

Originally Posted by Rainy Day

Did you know Apple came out with the first digital camera? The QuickTake.

Apple came out with the first laser printer too, and even though they had a long and initially very profitable run with their LaserPrinters, they are now completely out of the printer business. At one time, printers accounted for over half of Apple's revenue.

Apple also came out with the first CD-ROM, flatbed scanner and PDA. Apple has been a very creative company, and although they have not always pursued their own inventions to the extent of the iPod, this is one reason i'd hate to see a software-only Apple. And with open-source/free-software taking off like wildfire, i doubt there is any long-term future for a software-only company. Why do you suppose M$ is now doing hardware?

No question, Apple is very creative. It's interesting, though, that other companies are profiting from things which Apple came out with first, while Apple generally failed with them.

BTW, M$ is not just now doing hardware. They've had a hardware group for 10 years now. M$ hardware is responsible for less than 1% of M$ profit. Because of the costs of manufacture, software is far more profitable than hardware.

[Rainy Day]

AFAIK, M$ hardware the last ten years has been mostly keyboards and mice. Not much money in that kind of commodity.

When the iPod first came out, i wondered if it would go the way of the Newton and so many other of Apple's "sideline" products. But then, as i think about it, most of those other innovative products came out in the Sculley era. John was willing to try new things, but was too quick to drop them if not immediately profitable. Guess it's the Pepsi/Wall Street mentality? LaserWriters were out and had already proved themselves by the time Sculley came to Apple. So perhaps Jobs' approach is more to be patient and nurture fledgling technologies? Perhaps this is why the iPod has been so successful. I think its too bad Apple didn't stick with PDA's longer. I'm sure they could have made a go of it.

[Wiskedjak]

Originally Posted by Rainy Day

AFAIK, M$ hardware the last ten years has been mostly keyboards and mice. Not much money in that kind of commodity.

Exactly my point ... M$ is barely in the hardware game and isn't really showing much interest in it.

[Rainy Day]

It seems to me M$ would like to move more significantly into the hardware business, hence the Xbox.

[Tyre MacAdmin]

Originally Posted by hyperb0le

And it almost killed Apple. It's not gonna happen. End of story.

Who said anything about killing Apple?

[Rainy Day]

Originally Posted by Tyler McAdams

Who said anything about killing Apple?

When Apple cloned the Mac in the 90's, it didn't help to increase overall MacOS market-share. The loss of hardware sales to the clone makers almost killed the company.

[Wiskedjak]

Originally Posted by Rainy Day

When Apple cloned the Mac in the 90's, it didn't help to increase overall MacOS market-share. The loss of hardware sales to the clone makers almost killed the company.

That was back when there was actually a profit margin in the hardware industry. Now, the only companies pulling a profit on hardware are Dell (because they use cheap components and have sheer volume) and Apple (because 3% of the market is willing to pay for the limited selection of top end components that go into a Mac)

[RonnieoftheRose]

Originally Posted by Rainy Day

That would be a very dangerous bet. Hardware sales have sustained Apple through thick and thin for nearly 30 years. The iPod is a totally different critter in a very fickle marketplace. Its revenue could dry up quickly and unexpectedly.

If the iPod dried up Apple would lose a lot more than if they did what I thought of. Stock market analyists say that the iPod makes up more than half of Apple's current share value. You can be sure that Apple is designing its successor, and more.

Did you know Apple came out with the first digital camera? The QuickTake.

Apple came out with the first laser printer too, and even though they had a long and initially very profitable run with their LaserPrinters, they are now completely out of the printer business. At one time, printers accounted for over half of Apple's revenue.

Apple innovates but being first means little. It takes consistency and knowing what the market needs and wants for a product to be successful. Nobody wanted a digital camera then. Now they do. The iPod wasn't the first hard disc mp3 player, but when it came out it was the best designed one. It took over a year for it to really take off and that's because Apple was always secretly looking ahead towards the iTMS and the future. They've been doing the same thing with x86 for years, having a secret strategy, planning ahead and using disinformation or looking disinterested so competitors won't know what they are up to.

Apple could release devices like digital cameras, etc again. The difference this time is iLife. Other problems last time was no Steve Jobs and a poor design team.

Although iPods revenue is quite good now, who knows how long it will last? Computers are Apple's bread and butter. Jobs knows this.

No, the iPod has been the real bread and butter over the last 18 months. As an Apple share holder I kept good track of exactly what was bringing revenue in and what caused AAPL to reach $90 before the split. Apple's laptops have been doing well but on the desktop they have been suffering with low profit margins and low demand.

A profit sharing scheme with partner companies might make sense, it depends on the value of that profit. Apple designs the hardware, licenses the OS, and a Dell or a Sony resells them with their badge or moto on it "Designed for Sony by Apple". Apple takes some profit and the license fee without having invested a penny in manufacturing. Only companies that have the "Designed by Apple" moto can license OS X.

[d0ubled0wn]

I think licensing OS X to Dell and HP could work for Apple now that they have a good software base. The pro apps and iApps could become a very good cash cow by reaching a much wider audience. Apple needs as Office alternative though, and they are only one good spreadsheet.app away from having one. If people want to run OS X on their craptacular Dells and Gateways, fine let them. I personally know several people who'd love to run OS X on cheap hardware. There's a lot of potential here.

[loki74]

Originally Posted by Rainy Day

Did you know Apple came out with the first digital camera? The QuickTake.

Apple came out with the first laser printer too, and even though they had a long and initially very profitable run with their LaserPrinters, they are now completely out of the printer business. At one time, printers accounted for over half of Apple's revenue.

Apple also came out with the first CD-ROM, flatbed scanner and PDA.

WOW. That is news to me.. I mean, I knew about the PDA. But CDs? Laser printers? Scanners? Geez! If you could link me to some proof that would be great--I have some MS-loyal buddies who would do well to know exactly how much the PC world owes to Apple.

As for OSX on dells? Well all I can say is that Mr. Dell is a very smart businessman--he knows exactly how superior the OSX interface is compared to windows. And a computer with OSX inside and a typically low Dell pricetag outside? that would sell like freaking crazy.

Luckily, Apple isnt so willing to commit suicide....

[d0ubled0wn]

Originally Posted by loki74

Luckily, Apple isnt so willing to commit suicide....

Are you certain they already haven't?

[Rainy Day]

Originally Posted by loki74

WOW. That is news to me.. I mean, I knew about the PDA. But CDs? Laser printers? Scanners? Geez! If you could link me to some proof that would be great--I have some MS-loyal buddies who would do well to know exactly how much the PC world owes to Apple.

Sorry, i don't have any links for you, other than this thread!

I know about these things cause i watched it all unfold. I remember when Apple introduced their first LaserWriter... everybody else was on silly ol' dot matrix printers. Not sure of the exact year, but sometime in the mid-80's.

Now it's entirely possible (likely even) that laser printers were around for mainframes before Apple brought it to the desktop. But Apple made it affordable for real people like us. Same probably holds for scanners.

[Rainy Day]

Originally Posted by RonnieoftheRose

No, the iPod has been the real bread and butter over the last 18 months. As an Apple share holder I kept good track of exactly what was bringing revenue in and what caused AAPL to reach $90 before the split. Apple's laptops have been doing well but on the desktop they have been suffering with low profit margins and low demand..

According to Apple's 10-K filing for FY04, net sales were as follows (in millions):

Macintosh: $4,923 (FY04), $4,491 (FY03), $4,534 (FY02)
iPod: $1,306 (FY04), $345 (FY03), $143 (FY02)
Software: $502 (FY04), $362 (FY03), $307 (FY02)

Macintosh sales were their bread and butter last year, as it has been for the last 30-some years.

[chris m.]

Originally Posted by msuper69

Michael Dell's chances of selling Dell PCs with OS X are about the same as a snowball's in hell.

Given the fact that hell has frozen over with the Apple/Intel alliance, I'd say the snowball's chances are pretty good...

[RonnieoftheRose]

Originally Posted by Rainy Day

According to Apple's 10-K filing for FY04, net sales were as follows (in millions):

Macintosh: $4,923 (FY04), $4,491 (FY03), $4,534 (FY02)
iPod: $1,306 (FY04), $345 (FY03), $143 (FY02)
Software: $502 (FY04), $362 (FY03), $307 (FY02)

Macintosh sales were their bread and butter last year, as it has been for the last 30-some years.

I said the laptops made up the bulk of those Mac sales. Profit margins are also much higher on the iPods than Macs. You're only looking at net sales figures. In Mac sales they also include sales of monitors, which are not computers. Q4 also had the Mac mini. Apple won't release figures for how many have been sold, possibly because sales have been Cube-like. The profit margin on them is also very low.

Put it this way, looking at the fourth quarter results above, the actual profit in each category is not that far apart. And for the second time you ignored the idea that Apple could take a slice of the profit for machines it designs for other companies. They could carry on selling Macs while spinning off the Mac mini and new designs to Sony for example. The spun off models could lack certain features or simply be a budget range that another company, like Dell, would be able to distribute better. It's no different to what HP has with the iPod.

[Rainy Day]

Originally Posted by RonnieoftheRose

I said the laptops made up the bulk of those Mac sales. Profit margins are also much higher on the iPods than Macs.

Notebooks make up a tad more than half of all net Mac sales:
PowerMac $1,419
iMac $954
PowerBook $1,589
iBook $961

(Although notebook sales would probably be healthier if the spec's on the Mac notebooks were better.)

In Mac sales they also include sales of monitors, which are not computers.

Displays are listed under "Peripherals and other hardware," which had net sales of $951

Q4 also had the Mac mini. Apple won't release figures for how many have been sold, possibly because sales have been Cube-like. The profit margin on them is also very low.

I think you mean Q2 (FY2005), as that is when they were introduced.

you ignored the idea that Apple could take a slice of the profit for machines it designs for other companies. They could carry on selling Macs while spinning off the Mac mini and new designs to Sony for example. The spun off models could lack certain features or simply be a budget range that another company, like Dell, would be able to distribute better. It's no different to what HP has with the iPod.

I just don't see this as advantageous for Apple. They already have design, manufacturing and distribution capability. Why should they erode their gross margins by co-branding with other companies? Apple's brand name is already one of the fastest growing brands. They simply don't have a need to co-brand, and there doesn't appear to be any financial advantage to doing so.

[fado]

I think it may be a huge push for Apple. Imagine the education side to all this... when schools do not have Apple Computers, then they have Dell's.

Then if Dell begins carrying MacOS X, everykid will be using MacOS X... which brings us too.

the iPodHalo theory.

Good Design wins! and to what I can remember, Apple has been maintaining an impressive winning streak with Design Awards.

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by fado

I think it may be a huge push for Apple. Imagine the education side to all this... when schools do not have Apple Computers, then they have Dell's.

Then if Dell begins carrying MacOS X, everykid will be using MacOS X...

No, Dell didn't say they wanted to drop Microsoft.

Originally Posted by fado

which brings us too.

the iPodHalo theory.

Good Design wins! and to what I can remember, Apple has been maintaining an impressive winning streak with Design Awards.

Small flaw: Good design actually doesn't win. Hence why everybody is using ugly-ass Dells but nobody bought the Cube. In mass appeal, price wins.

[Athens]

Originally Posted by Chuckit

What are you talking about? Apple is making enormous profits in hardware. I said it once, I said it a million times: Apple Is A Hardware Company.

Maybe but Apple has a chance to really compete with Windows, first they have a killer modern OS, second since they will be using Intel CPUs much of the development of the internals of there hardware is now off there shoulders which means lower cost per Mac, they just have to concentrate on the software development and the industry design of the computer itself not the expensive internals. Apple almost died with the clones because Apple had all the development costs and the clones just used off the shelf parts. To be blunt Apple can maintain a premium price on there hardware, less development costs and make profit on the sale of there OS and maintain competitiveness with reduced Mac prices, it would not be like the situation with the clones in the 90's.

[darkelf]

to the suggestion that apple abandon its hardware side and sell the mac os x operating system to all takers, we reply with the following...

os/2
openstep
beos

thank you.

[MDA]

Originally Posted by an0therdumbsn

http://www.fortune.com/fortune/fastf...ml?promoid=cnn
this is a very scary thing
mac running on intel is one thing, but on a ugly black dell box.

Who gives a rat's ass what Dell thinks or wants. Does anyone remember back to the awful things he had to say about Apple a few years ago? I say screw him.

MDA

[Rainy Day]

Originally Posted by Athens

Maybe but Apple has a chance to really compete with Windows, first they have a killer modern OS... Apple almost died with the clones because Apple had all the development costs and the clones just used off the shelf parts.

I agree that Apple is in a good position to compete with Windoze, but i don't think they need to license MacOS X to do it. What would Apple gain by it? It is unlikely to grow MacOS X market-share any faster than going it alone, it doesn't solve any manufacturing or distribution problems/issues, and there's nothing to be gained by brand leveraging (Apple already has one of the fastest growing and most recognizable brands).

The lesson of the 90's cloning still holds true today: Apple will be giving away many of its customers to other companies, and this will hurt Mac sales. As long as Apple has the production capacity and distribution system to meet customer demand, what does Apple get out of the deal?

Product shortages of PPC Mac's were almost always the result of parts shortages from single-source suppliers (like IBM). The move to Intel would seem to address those problems.

[Graymalkin]

Originally Posted by Athens

...second since they will be using Intel CPUs much of the development of the internals of there hardware is now off there shoulders which means lower cost per Mac, they just have to concentrate on the software development and the industry design of the computer itself not the expensive internals.

You make it sound like Apple are the ones laying the traces for their processors and such, this is not the case. While Apple's engineering staff has some say-so in the overall design of PowerPC chips the development and production of the chips has been entirely on the shoulders of Motorola and IBM. Apple's people design the system and then figure out how to stick a logic board and some components inside of said system. Once they've got a design worked out they send that to a manufacturer that uses their facilities to build the parts and then assemble them.

Originally Posted by Athens

Apple almost died with the clones because Apple had all the development costs and the clones just used off the shelf parts. To be blunt Apple can maintain a premium price on there hardware, less development costs and make profit on the sale of there OS and maintain competitiveness with reduced Mac prices, it would not be like the situation with the clones in the 90's.

Uh, not quite. Some of the Mac clones were quite a bit faster and cheaper than Apple's machines of the time. This was hitting Apple hard not because Apple was spending so much time working on custom hardware designs but because they didn't have the manufacturing capacity to meet their orders and the clone makers did. PowerComputing was spending almost as much time as Apple on hardware engineering but secured better production contracts. You make it sound like there were PowerPC motherboards floating all over the place for clone makers to simply pick up at Fry's to use in their machines. The reality is they had to design and build them just the same as Apple.

Cloning the Mac is not going to magically make the Mac more attractive. When MacOS was licensed out the idea was that the clone makers would be more flexible than Apple and would go after a lot of niche and low-end markets. Instead the clone makers appealed to Apple's core markets, precisely the one Apple hoped they would avoid. People were turning to the cheaper and more powerful PowerComputing and UMAX machines over what Apple was selling. They could easily ditch Apple since the PCC and UMAX boxes ran the same MacOS as all of the software they already had.

Originally Posted by Athens

Maybe but Apple has a chance to really compete with Windows, first they have a killer modern OS...

You cannot compete with Microsoft directly in the desktop PC market and expect to stay in business long. They have literally billions of dollars to throw at thwarting your every move. Apple can't just make MacOS run on every PC in the world and expect to be in business for very long. Microsoft has an enormous OS fortification built for itself that extends far beyond just Windows the OS. Microsoft has Office which makes them more money than Windows every year. With Office are billions of Word documents, Excel spreadsheets, and PowerPoint presentations. If Apple goes head to head with Microsoft the Mac version of Office would cease to exist and with it a huge reason anyone would ever use MacOS in a corporate environment.

Why is Office so important when there's many other productivity apps available? Workgroups and legacy support. Office for MacOS and Windows has really powerful support for working as a team over a network. Word documents have revision control and the ability to be marked up with comments as they are revised. They can also be linked up to external data sources to do data merges, even merges based on particular criteria in the external data. Office documents also respect access control which is important for fine grained control over the document's content. Office also supports a number of different file formats from a variety of productivity suites of various vintages. Office 2004 can be dropped into a network with decade old files and have little trouble reading and writing any of them.

Non-Office productivity suites often aim mostly towards basic feature parity with Microsoft's offerings. The problem is that Microsoft perfected those features in Word/Excel 5 and has since moved on. While I really like Pages and Mariner Write neither is a real replacement for Word 2004. While Pages might be light years ahead of Word in page layout I can't populate a couple sheets of Avery labels with data out of an Excel spreadsheet with it. I also can't add notes to particular parts of the document or track and see revisions. Without Office the Mac platform is in a very bad place when it comes to business environments of all types. Even graphic designers and video editors would be hard pressed to run their businesses without having Word and Excel available to them.

As such it isn't very likely Apple will let Michael Dell or anyone else run MacOS on their computers. Outright Mac clones are only going to dilute the brand and cause Apple to compete with its licensees. Letting companies like Dell and HP co-brand systems running MacOS would be equally lame. If Dell and HP's machines sucked mightily the bad impression would be on Apple not Dell or HP. Michael Dell is trying to pull what Rob Glaser pulled with iTMS. He's basically saying to the press "oh I'd do ths and that if *whimsical sigh* only Apple would license this and that" in order to get the press to jump over Apple for being mean bullies and not sharing their toys. Rob Glaser did exactly that with his comments on iTMS and Real's Rhapsody project. Real just wanted to hop on Apple's successful coattails. Dell's comments look to be following the same vein. Michael Dell will beat his "if only" drum in order to perk some ears up at Microsoft and in a few mouth breathing blogs.

[analogika]

Originally Posted by Wiskedjak

That was back when there was actually a profit margin in the hardware industry. Now, the only companies pulling a profit on hardware are Dell (because they use cheap components and have sheer volume) and Apple (because 3% of the market is willing to pay for the limited selection of top end components that go into a Mac)

Um, no. Those 3% and rising of the market are willing to pay for the superior user experience of Macintosh, which is a direct result of Apple having a very firm hand over both software AND hardware engineering.

the superior components have nothing to do with this, since there is nothing superior about the internal components unless you compare with low-end cheap PC hardware.

The overall design and *combination* of these components, in conjunction with the software engineering to go with it, however, DO make a difference equivalent to quite a bit of user time and money.

I had a customer in the other day who was a video editor and really needed SUPERIOR hardware. Since he needed a laptop, he bought an ASUS machine.