if apple allowed their software and hardware to be cloned?

[spaminator]

do you think that if today, apple allowed their software and hardware to be cloned, that they would be able to dominate the market, or is it already to late? :rrg:

[Child of Cupertino]

Now that they're on Intel, I believe that cloning -- or rather, licensing -- their hardware would be of little attraction to other OEMs and people, as it's so close to them being able to run it on their OWN PCs (like what you could build) that the shortfall would be just as frustrating as it is now. And with hardware licensing comes licensing fees, diluting any price relief versus buying a non-licensed generic PC.

The real attraction most people feel is Apple selling their OS for general use. This scenario I feel would be fatal to Apple. WHY??! Apple's dominant revenue generator is hardware. As people's hardware-buying dollars could go towards a PC of ANY origin and not into Apple's pockets, their revenue streams would probably go into a severe decline. Now, people argue that they would make more money off of software and OS revenues but, while that's true, the amount of user-base they would have to claim in order to survive as "Applesoft" would probably not be attained before they went bankrupt.

There are probably millions of PC end-users who would love to pony up the money for OS X -- and probably a million more whom Apple would lose revenues over as they stole it off of P2P -- but Microsoft enjoys a gigantic revenue stream from corporate licenses. THAT is their crown jewel. I don't think that the enterprise market would jump to OS X in sufficient numbers in time for Apple to be around to reap those benefits. We're talking stumbling blocks such as IT staff retraining, employee retraining or orientation, new 3rd party software licensing -- if the desired functionality is available for OS X in the first place (most are (http://guide.apple.com/), but you can't generalize one way or the other -- a big absence is MS Access and AutoCAD -- but there are alternatives... but not THOSE "name brands"), network and collaboration infrastructures, custom proprietary software would have to be recoded from the ground up, etc. etc. etc.

PLUS, there's the trust factor. Apple has an infamous history in the enterprise market. Although things are pretty rough on the Windows security front and frustration levels are high, CTOs at least know Microsoft, knows how MS works, and assumes they'll always be there. And CTOs and I.T. managers HATE change. And Microsoft is PAINFULLY AWARE that they cannot ease people's reliance upon them. Just look at all the compromises they make in Windows to ensure backwards compatibility? Even Windows Vista will STILL have a Registry, an MS-DOS command interpreter, BIOS and surely millions of lines of code that stretches back two decades (at least). Vista is not even going to support 32 bit EFI booting (for the time being)! And guess what? if Apple released OS X for any PC, they'd have to make it compatible with any PC... and fall victim to the same deadweight hardware technologies Microsoft is saddled with... and that would kill some of the desirable aspects of the OS :(

So, how much of the existing installed base of PCs do I think Apple would have to grab off of Microsoft to attain financial sustainability? Jeez... again, probably more than the money they've got in their war chest could take them (2Bln in 1999 (http://www.mackido.com/Myths/outofbuis.html) 4Bln in 2002 (http://www.macobserver.com/stockwatch/2002/09/27.1.shtml), and might be up to8Bln now IIRC). I'm not a financial analyst, nor a tech market guru, but my gut says that Apple would need AT LEAST 25% of the market to maintain themselves -- MORE if they want to see killer profits. Throughout this period, their hardware revenues and gross margins would TANK. And all the things I mentioned above -- mainly 3rd party software support -- would have to fall into place REAL FAST. And what would Microsoft do as Apple went into direct competition onthe same hardware platform? Would they dump Office for the Mac? Would they be allowed to (DOJ)??

One last note -- and it's a curve-ball back on my FUD-laden post. A big change like the above would have no impact on their iPod revenues, and that cash cow could keep the bucks flowing in. The iPod is really the first successful non-computer hardware product they've ever sold. Oh, they've done laser printers and so on in the past and even came out with one of the first digital still cameras (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apple_QuickTake) (which was a commercial flop -- ahead of its time). None of that compared to the iPod's success.

Another curve-ball is NOT so much Apple's new ability to boot into Windows (http://www.apple.com/macosx/bootcamp/) but what's being perceived as more important is that new virtualization software (http://thecomputermechanics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=12275), capable of running both OS X and WIndows simultaneously at near native speeds. THAT could turn the whole scenario on its head as companies could use as much of OS X as they could while still using as little of Windows as they needed. over time, they could migrate to all OS X licensing when feasible (and as the 3rd party software gets ported to OS X).

WHEW!!

Oh. The short answer? They're too late.

Does That answer your question? :D

[Just Doug1]

In late 2004 I believe, Apple hired a researcher to explore the ramifications of releasing X as a competitor to XP following the successful AMD grey box tests.

His conclusions bordering on the apocalyptic. To quote:

"`Dogs and cats" living together. Mass hysteria.''

Dr. Peter Venkman

:)

[Child of Cupertino]

HAHA!!! Loved Murray in GHostbusters!

[Just Doug1]

Damn! I cut'n'pasted the wrong quote!!

I know I'll blame it on the o/s and ignore the chair-keyboard interface.

Gives me an idea for a new sig file with digs all around. :)

[Tim]

microsoft has big ticket items like office, their server products, .NET, etc., to keep their revenue stream high. Apple doesn't. If Apple were to survive solely on software, they'd have to be a much bigger competitor to M$ in the software world. I'd bet M$ is interested in keeping Apple just as they are.