Now that there’s a comparable operating system with comparable popularity to Windows out there that’s also running on Intel, the media and analysts have come up the arguments that Apple should release the OS for “normal” PCs and they’d make a killing off it. The assumption is that people would buy it up and Apple would make more money on the software sales from people that wouldn’t buy a Mac anyway. That’s the assumption, but is it true? History speaks to us on this topic.
Over 80% of Apple’s sales relate to hardware (Form 10-K, Dec 2005 ) which leaves about 20% for other things, such as software and the music store. This software would be items such as Mac OS X, but also software (with higher margins) such as iLife, iWork, Final Cut Studio and Mac OS X Server. From today’s numbers, software is not the most significant part of Apple’s sales, even though some of the prices dance dangerously close to the price of new hardware. This begs the question “what if software was a significant seller?” Well, let’s look at two companies that were created by ex-Apple employees who had the same idea.
Be
When Be was created about a decade ago their idea was to make a computer that was a geek’s wet dream and then convert the world. Nice dream, but not really rooted in reality. They released a computer that, to their credit, wasn’t terribly puny and tacked on a ton of little gadgets to it. Though it used Motorola’s processors, it could not run Apple’s OS for obvious legal reasons. There was but one alternative: make their own.
They did so. Successfully even. Few would argue that BeOS wasn’t ahead of it’s time (though lacking in places, it was better than Mac OS 8 ) but the entirely imaginable happened: no one wrote programs for it. To be fair, a lot of shareware/freeware/OSS developers wrote software for it, and some of it was really quite good. The sticking point here is the big names never drew themselves to the platform and, thus, it was doomed to obscurity. Since the OS had no programs, there was no incentive to buy the box. Sales lagged.
A year passed, then another, then Be realized the GeekPort wasn’t going to drive sales of the hardware alone and they cancelled the box, relying on software sales (at which point I should mention, it always ran on Macintoshes as well as the BeBox, so they tried the multi-platform strategy for a while as well, with no success). Over the years they changed plans again and again, trying steadily to remain relevant until the company finally folded and was bought by Palm and broken apart internally for intellectual property. Ouch.
NeXT
Years earlier, however, is the story of NeXT. The long, sad story of NeXT. I’ll spare the details as there are better histories available but suffice it to say that NeXT was actually more successful than Be when it came to survival (arguably because they sold a better product). The same idea came to bear: sell the hardware, write an OS for it, make tons off the whole package. Box never sold, same reasons. Dropped the box and made OSes for Intel computers. They held a very small niche in education and video for a decade before being bought by Apple Computer (who, in turn, managed to make NeXT a household name under, curiously, the same management).
Apple is Neither
Two companies tried to do this, tried to make an OS that competed with Windows on their turf (admittedly after the failure of their hardware to sell, which Apple has no problem with). Both hung on for a while and then faded away. Neither is relevant today. The fact is that there is no usurping Windows without the help of the Justice Department (which has decided Microsoft really isn’t a big threat after all). To invade Windows’ territory would be suicide simply because what Apple is doing now is working for them. They are selling computers and making profit. In fact, out of the last twenty quarters, only three had losses, and those were five years ago. These days, that’s just a plain miracle. Apple’s not going to move to selling software on another platform because there’s not enough money in the sale to justify it because people using Dells will use Windows because it’s what they’re accustomed to. Be and NeXT resorted to selling their OS for beige boxes because their hardware failed. Apple’s hardware is not failing.
Never mind the larger point that Apple’s value is that they did, and have always done, what Be and NeXT could not: they have made and maintained a very large customer base with complete control over the hardware and software. Buttons on the computer do things in software, if it’s booted, or in hardware if it’s not (the eject key, for instance, works from firmware in one fashion and in the OS in a similar, yet different fashion). The computer simply works as one coherent unit, head to toe, and that is the great appeal of the Macintosh. The appeal of the Mac OS is successful integration of it with the hardware; something that is available only when one company owns the whole setup.
Now, realistically, could this be accomplished for the PC world? Well sure. Just buy one, each, of the following:
- Every motherboard sold since 2000.
- Every sound card sold since 2000.
- Every video card sold since 2000.
- Every processor sold since 2000.
- Every CD-ROM sold since 2000.
- Every keyboard, mouse, joystick, and touchpad sold since 2000.
Then one of each of the following:
- Every complete desktop system sold since 2000 by a major manufacturer (Dell, Compaq, Gateway, HP, etc.).
- Their portables, too.
Now, write support for them all in the OS to the level the Mac has support of all their computers back to 2000. At this point we can safely say that the Mac OS would be equal on PC to the Mac OS on the Macintosh. It will also occupy three DVDs and have piss-poor support for half of the devices.
Presuming this was done, who will buy it? I won’t; I like my iBooks. My mother won’t, she has a newish eMac. My dad won’t because he already owns, knows, and uses Windows. My co-workers might, but I work in the computer industry so it’s expected that geeks will always hunt for new toys, even they’re only used for a few days. Really, the only people I can see buying the Mac OS for their PCs would be people who can’t afford a Mac in the first place and want the pretty interface. Some businesses that want the Mac OS for it’s own merits might buy it, but if they’re going that far then they are typically willing to go ahead and get the hardware as well so that it’s, well, integrated.
I can see two types of people buying it:
- People who want a Mac but are unwilling/unable to buy the hardware and
- People who want the OS for it’s own merits and have a previous hardware investment they want to salvage.
Sounds to me like a really, really small number of people. So even if Apple went for it and made a PC version, even one that worked on older computers, no one would want it enough to actually buy it. Sad, but true. Instead Apple has been doing what they should have done all along: sell the hardware and use the merits of the hardware and the software to do it. Want Mac OS X? Get a Mac. Want iLife or iWork? Get a Mac. Want Final Cut Studio? Get a Mac.
Apple will never openly sell the OS for the PC because the Mac OS is the biggest selling point for the hardware, which is the part that Apple actually makes their money off of. The Mac OS, iLife, and to an extent Mac OS X Server, Final Cut Studio, and such are all nothing more than selling points for the hardware, which is keeping Apple in business because unless you’re Microsoft or Adobe there’s just no money in selling software. Really, just ask any full-time shareware developer if he’s getting rich off his software. While you’re asking, see if he’s had anything other than ramen or Mac and Cheese for dinner this week.
Apple is running fast and high, and the formula is working. While they’ve made their Intel version, and some have made it work on selected PCs, that’s as far as they’ll go with it. There’s simply no money to be had, historically, competing with Windows on its own ground. Apple will do the smart thing and keep the formula they do have for one very simple reason: it’s working like a charm.
I’m not even going to touch the very viable argument about software piracy impacting profits and simply say this: you can’t pirate a computer. Everyone that can get one does, unlike software. With the proliferation of P2P on the PC the small geek crowd that would actually buy Mac OS X for Beige Boxen will probably just steal and hack it instead.
Too bad BeOS didn’t work out.. This OS was really a dream come true. it was: 1 – easy to install, even easier then windows. 2- Fast 3- Had an Incredibly good looking interface. 4- had a nice nix-like shell. 5- The fact that you could run the OS under a file Image was quite cool also.
Unfortunatly, all OS that are developped and do not fall under the “Windows” or “OsX” categories must inevitably fail (For the consummer market at least).
Oh well, great article. I also agree that Apple will probably never sell their OS to run on other hardware then their own.
Cheers!
Kiltak
[Geeks Are Sexy] Tech. News
IBM also tried to capture some market share away from MS with a superior OS that ran on even more Hardware than windows, but even IBM couldn’t topple the MS giant.
I can see two types of people buying it:
* People who want a Mac but are unwilling/unable to buy the hardware and * People who want the OS for it’s own merits and have a previous hardware investment they want to salvage.What about type III: People who want a Mac and are willing to buy the hardware, but Apple’s product matrix simply doesn’t fit the machine they want?
There has been an ongoing discussion at Ars Technica, among many other places, about an “xMac” that would fill the gap between the iMac and the Mac Pro: an upgradeable, performance machine that doesn’t break the bank. In short, an enthusiast’s Mac. It would also be useful for students with a bit more to spend on a purchase than you need for the iMac, as well as plenty of others who simply don’t need a quad-core machine to get their work done, but still want good graphics capabilities – and the ability to choose their own monitor/hard drive/etc.
Well Apple did turn one corner and have XP running on new Intel Mac so why not the other way around. I can Game on my MacBook Pro now.
Your argument about drivers is absolutely nuts. Most of the drivers for many major manufactures are out there. Whether source code converts, made for BSD, or some other xINX platform the drivers are around. Apple would only need to find a way to make them work inside OS X which most already do so. I already have a bunch of Mac Geek friends that have ported OS X to a regular Intel Box, but I won’t admit I have any, lol.
The bridge of the OS code to x86 has been made. To release on the World-wide Intel platform would take commitment and yes a lot of work but you could up the price of the software for release on non-Mac hardware. This would help cover support costs. There is what 9 out of 10 PC’s released are Microsoft. Cut into 3 of 9 units at lets say $299 a copy and there is your hardware cost make-up of selling one Mac.
What about trying to land one Big Fish. Why not go to IBM, Gateway or HP and say “Hey, OS X would look awesome on your PC lets make it an optional OS install.” That would break the ice into the base Windows market. Microsoft controls the market because Dell, Compaq, Gateway, HP, etc. release all their units with Windows, they have no real options. Get a few to start offering OS X as an Option and watch what happens.
I think there would need to be 2 other things done by Apple to make this work. The 3rd would be pure UNIX port ability but Leopard is claiming to have this. One would be to Serialize the Mac OS to prevent, as best you can and stop piracy. The second in my opinion would be to offer a better Graphics sub-system like Direct X is to Windows. To Get the gaming world on Mac OS X would be a MAJOR coup d‘état. That would be my focus to get all major games to Mac OS X on Intel.
You’re naive, at best. Writing and porting drivers isn’t remotely as trivial as you make it sound, and no major PC vendor will actually offer OS X as an option even if given the chance. Sure, Dell talked it up a while back, but the reality is that they were more likely trying to use the resulting press to pressure Microsoft a little. In reality, actually going to OS X – in any quantity – will have devestating effects on their relationship with Microsoft. It’ll never happen for that alone, even if Apple were willing. Which they’re not.
Remember, Apple wouldn’t get $299, or even today’s price of $129, on any OS that a third party would bundle. At volume, they’d discount it significantly, perhaps even by more than half.
Apple’s already been down this road with PowerComputing and Umax and others. It didn’t work, and not just because Steve was an asshole and pulled the licenses. Those other companies were undercutting Apple’s prices, stealing sales, and their license fees for the Mac OS weren’t making up the difference in Apple’s lost sales. They were, effectively, slowly drowning Apple. Make no bones about it, Apple’s near-death-experience in the mid-90s was almost entirely due to the OS licensing scheme.
Apple is a hardware company. Period. It is their strength, it is their core competency. The differences between a hardware company and an OS licensing company are too great for Apple to suddenly decide, “You know what, let’s do that…” and be expected to succeed. They would need to completely rework the entire corporate structure from top to bottom.
Not gonna happen.
What exactly is a “pure UNIX port” and how is the existing OS X not one, and how is Leopard supposed to be one?
Won’t happen. Apple has historically only serialized applications of extremely high retail value (Final Cut), or of significant business use (iWork). At its core, notwithstanding FairPlay (which is forced upon Apple by the RIAA), Apple doesn’t believe in weak or strong copy protection on general use software.
Gaming is nothing. The PC gaming market, in the Windows environ, has been shriveling consistently in recent years as gaming enters the mainstream and shifts to an overwhelming bias towards consoles. Also, the gaming industry isn’t a rosey place to be. The vast majority of games and studios never make a profit, with nearly the entire financial girth of the industry coming from a very, very small subset of companies and properties – Bungie/Halo, Blizzard/WoW, EA, and a few others. Even among the successful companies, most of their individual titles never turn a profit on the PC, and they aren’t doing much better on the console.
The reality is that the % of Mac users out there isn’t very enticing to software developers, be it game developers or home/office software. Even if it was trivial to port their software (and it is, sometimes), or if a company like Westlake Interactive or Aspyr is willing to assume all of the risk of the port (which they frequently do), the developers often pass up the opportunity because the upside is simply too small for them to care.
The other consideration is that the vast majority – overwhelming, vast, soul crushing numbers in the extremely large 90s of percents – never buy new software for their computers after the initial buy. Expecting to sell OS X at retail for beige boxes, in any quantities, is an error in judgement of massive proportion. The only economically viable option for Apple would be bundling with new CPUs, and it just plain isn’t going to happen. Between their previous experience with licensing and current vendors’ unwillingness to rock the boat with Microsoft, it’s just not going to happen unless the industry undergoes a gargantuan transformation.
Anyone who lives on planet earth, yet honestly thinks that writing several million versions of drivers, for several million pieces of peecee hardware, just so that Mac OS X can sell for the PeeCee users, is either naive, dilluded or both. What you are saying that they could/should do, is the complete inverse of what they have done – and what they have done, is make a limited product range with limited drivers to code for said hardware, instead of the chaotic mass-driver deployment, which would be needed for PeeCee hardware. The business model that Apple use (and which works VERY well!) is the absolute OPPOSITE of what you are suggesting, and… quite frankly, all I can say to you guys is:
PAH!!!!!
Take a bus ride to Cupertino, along with a biro and an application form for Apple R&D, your favourite “friendly business turnaround guru”-type chappy, and tell them you know better. What a waste of keystrokes this blog is, and I feel I have just wasted 10 minutes also, but hey, someone has got to tell you!.
Wow. Your reading comprehension skills suck.
In addition to re-reading the article in the hopes that you see that you’re saying the same thing as the article, you might also look at its date and see that it was written before the Intel transition.
Funny thing: I am in the small minority who desperately wants to run MacOS on standard PC hardware. While I don’t condone piracy, Steve leaves me no other option. Still, I’ve installed triple-boot setups on 3 laptops and 1 desktop. I am now doing the same to a convertible Toshiba Tecra M7 tablet. Basically I will have the same functionality as the ModBook with regard to MacOS X.
For more info about my pursuit of the triple-boot, (with very close to fully-operational hardware) go to http://forum.tabletpcreview.com/showthread.php?t=7928
Granted, the unit has very close to fully-operational hardware because I selected hardware options nearly identical to those in the MacBook or MacBook Pro. Also, the OSX86 community has done a remarkable job on getting various PC hardware working with OS X, without Apple’s help, of course.
I believe Dell and Apple could have a symbiotic relationship. OS X could be sold on every Dell and be supported by Dell. Dell would thus increase their market share around the world, and by selling so many more copies of OS X, more developers would write for OS X, thereby improving the value of the operating system. Dell could also build servers designed for OS X. Apple could continue to sell beautiful, well-designed, rather expensive, non-modifiable hardware to those willing to spend a little more. Furthermore, with TPM chips or other controlled hardware means, piracy of OS X would be just as moot an issue as it is now.
From a market standpoint, however, I do not believe Apple should open OS X to everyone. One of OS X’s main strengths is that it always works, and always works well. As the Linux community shows, driver support is tough. With only one company and limited hardware configurations the “just works” policy could be maintained. Furthermore, OS X would thus be much more appealing to the enthusiast market.
The vendor does not have to be Dell; it could be HP/Compaq, Gateway, Toshiba, Lenovo, Quanta, Asus; however, it should only be one vendor to allow for simplicity. Dell is the only company with the requisite and trusted infrastructure, and Asus is arguably the only company that makes Apple-grade complete kits. (Asus builds Apple’s Macbooks in Taiwan as far as I know) However, someone like Asus or Quanta or Lenovo could gain huge marketshare in the US this way.
Mac OS X would be good fit for some of the niche laptop vendors, particularly the Panasonic Toughbook line, which in keeping with the Apple tradition are built to very high standards. Toughbooks are complementary to the Macbook line, as they are designed and constructed to survive rough handling in extreme environments (e.g. desert warfare). ToughBooks do tend to run slower than the comparable Dell or Lenovo machines, as they are built with slower, low power consumption CPUs to conserve battery power/improve battery runtime. OS X would run just fine on such a machine, especially when compared to the bloated Vista. There may be some synergy here: Panasonic gets a fast OS that is known to be cool and stylish, which may attract a new group of buyers to their machines. Apple gets to sell software (pretty much pure profit) for a line of computers that does not compete with their own, and they likewise may get some interest from a new market segment.
Post new comment