backtop

Print E-mail del.icio.us 73 comment(s) - last by overzealot.. on Nov 4 at 10:29 AM
Apple moves again to more tightly lock its platform

Apple is in a constant battle with unlockers in the form of both independent enthusiasts and rival companies.  It recently succeeded in killing iPhone jailbreaking for the time being and cutting off the Palm Pre from iTunes.  However, to its dismay, Psystar is selling a software hack to trick Apple's Snow Leopard OS into being easily installed on PCs.

Now, Apple is reportedly preparing a new release of OS X Snow Leopard (10.6.2) to try to kill a growing section of the Hackintosh community. 

Hackintosh users typically purchase more affordable machines and then install Snow Leopard, essentially getting a Mac or OS X multi-boot machine without Apple's luxury prices.  There's little Apple can do about that on a simple level, as it uses much of the same hardware.  However, some in the OS X hacking community have recently been putting Snow Leopard and other versions of OS X on netbooks.

In order to cut down on the possibility of Hackintosh netbooks in the wild, Apple will reportedly kill support for the Intel Atom processor with its OS X 10.6.2 (Snow Leopard) and 10.5.9 (Leopard) updates.  Its unclear if the move is also an indication that Apple is planning on avoiding Intel's popular mobile CPU for its own future products, such as a potential netbook or the upcoming Apple tablet.

For now the best option for those with netbook Hackintoshes is to stay on the current version and not install the update.  The community is actively discussing work-arounds though to restore this functionality.


Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled
blind eye
By tastyratz on 11/2/2009 9:51:14 AM , Rating: 5
This should be taken to by apple like piracy to Microsoft - where they swear they are against it, and enact simple cat/mouse countermeasures... but aren't REALLY against it. Piracy is one of the reasons Microsoft has retained such high market penetration - they people who want a free product are going to still want a free product so better they be trained and competent in the windows platform to further entice business market purchases.
Apple has an incredible profit margin, but right now they do still lack market penetration. The hacks are usually done by tech savvy people (the people you want on your side) and not by the general public. Most of them might not have ever purchased a mac computer but they would do this. Apple doesn't have to officially support or condone the hackintosh community - but this is actually a good thing for their ecosystem with such a low market penetration.




RE: blind eye
By amanojaku on 11/2/2009 10:24:45 AM , Rating: 4
quote:
Apple doesn't have to officially support or condone the hackintosh community - but this is actually a good thing for their ecosystem with such a low market penetration.
I disagree. MS makes its money off of software and services. The IT world currently revolves around MS, so MS can afford to look the other way when it's more expensive to chase down pirates than to ignore the poor bastards. Economically poor, which means MS has little to gain from stomping on people it normally can't make a profit off of.

Apple makes its money off of software and services, as well, but mostly hardware. Its software model drives the bulk of its hardware sales. If the OS was hacked Apple would see a decline in its hardware sales, as you no longer need a Mac to run OS X. That would be bad, very bad. For Apple.


RE: blind eye
By Reclaimer77 on 11/2/2009 11:34:40 AM , Rating: 5
quote:
If the OS was hacked Apple would see a decline in its hardware sales, as you no longer need a Mac to run OS X. That would be bad, very bad. For Apple.


Perhaps. But I think you are over estimating how many people would really prefer running OS X on a PC.


RE: blind eye
By Alexstarfire on 11/2/09, Rating: 0
RE: blind eye
By Alexstarfire on 11/2/2009 11:53:31 PM , Rating: 1
How in the world did I get down rated for that post? That has got to be one of the least fanboy sounding comments for this article. Are you going to tell me that if people had the option of running OSX on a regular PC that they'd just pass it up and get an Apple computer? Some might, but the majority won't.


RE: blind eye
By therealnickdanger on 11/3/2009 3:47:55 PM , Rating: 2
I can't speak for the majority of DT readers that modded you down, but I will say something about what you wrote.

Most of my friends are PC users, but many have been buying Apple for two reasons: to be trendy/hip or to use Final Cut Pro. Only one of my friends that uses a Mac is actually saavy enough to load OSX on a PC, but he likes the look of the unibody aluminum Apple more than any comparible PC notebook. I don't blame him. Apple has some really sexy hardware when it comes to mobile products. Plus, he can run Windows on it rather effortlessly for all his other needs.

So from that anecdote, I have concluded that I don't give a sh*t what Apple does. They clearly make their profit from hardware, so I understand their desire to protect that, but then let's be realistic: were the people loading OSX on $300 netbooks (likely just for fun or to rub in the faces of their Mac friends) ever going to buy a $1200 Macbook in the first place? Probably not.


RE: blind eye
By weskurtz0081 on 11/2/2009 12:31:43 PM , Rating: 5
Do you really think the people who install OSX on an Atom based netbook are the same people that are in the market for a Mac?

I don't think so, I betcha they will make no difference in the bottom line of Apple.


RE: blind eye
By bruce24 on 11/2/2009 12:54:30 PM , Rating: 5
re: weskurtz0081 "Do you really think the people who install OSX on an Atom based netbook are the same people that are in the market for a Mac?"

Do you really think the people who install OSX on an Atom based netbook are paying for their copy of OSX?


RE: blind eye
By weskurtz0081 on 11/2/2009 1:02:42 PM , Rating: 2
I thought we already established that it's a VERY small number of people, and that Apple makes the margins on the hardware, not the software.

And, yes, some of those people are actually BUYING OSX and installing it on the PC's.


RE: blind eye
By thekdub on 11/3/2009 12:29:53 AM , Rating: 2
Its not like you need to pirate a hacked kernel anymore. Bootloaders are all the rage these days, and with a legit copy of Snow Leopard for $30, it doesn't make much sense to not buy a legal hard copy of the OS and avoid piracy altogether.


RE: blind eye
By Hydrofirex on 11/2/2009 1:00:25 PM , Rating: 2
Maybe not for them, but absolutely for other not so savvy users. Don't underestimate the power of free advertising and remember that the general public takes their recommendations from the tech savvy users.

HfX


RE: blind eye
By rudy on 11/2/2009 1:36:07 PM , Rating: 2
As long as it is hard 99% of the average user is not going to make a hackintosh. Building their own computers going to forums trust me I know a fair number of mac users and none of them would ever do this unless I showed them how. Apple is stupid they are over reacting if they let people hackintosh systems they would probably see increased growth over the years.


RE: blind eye
By tastyratz on 11/2/2009 4:00:27 PM , Rating: 2
precisely,
this is exactly the userbase they want to foster, people who are tech savvy and running the osx platform. Techs mean support, advice, and development... all leading to a larger overall marketshare. The people who steal osx are probably going to turn around and steal windows when osx squashes them out... difference being their recommendations and familiarity with the respective systems. You might be surprised how many people might choose xyz because "cousin eddy can help them with it"
As long as the general public cant do so without being tech savvy, it should deter 90% of the target userbase of lemmings.


RE: blind eye
By HighWing on 11/2/2009 6:26:12 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
You might be surprised how many people might choose xyz because "cousin eddy can help them with it"


Out of all my tech friends I'm the only one who will even touch a mac for support. One of my friends has even gone as far as to tell family members and friends that he will not help them with any PC Tech Support if they get a mac.

So yeah, the whole getting support from friends IS a big deal-breaker for many I know to "not" get a mac.


RE: blind eye
By n00bxqb on 11/2/2009 9:13:04 PM , Rating: 2
The thing is the people who are doing this type of thing are 15-25 years old. When you start to get older, two things happen:

1) You generally make more money and spend more money.
2) You don't want to spend your time fooling around with computer stuff.

So, in addition to the recommendations (as mentioned by other users) to friends/family that come from turning a blind eye to this, you also may convert some of them down the road to actually purchasing Macs when money isn't such a big deal and they no longer want to have to do the research and spend the time fiddling to get everything working.

Myself, I have 2 Macs and 4 PCs ... I can't stand the Macs ...


RE: blind eye
By reader1 on 11/2/2009 10:49:27 AM , Rating: 2
Microsoft doesn't make PCs, while Apple does. Limiting hardware further by removing support for Atom will only help Mac sales. Apple makes a lot more money off of hardware than off of their OS.


RE: blind eye
By theapparition on 11/2/2009 12:02:38 PM , Rating: 2
Congrats, an intelligent reply. See, it wasn't that hard. Was it?

I'm going to disagree with the increase in Mac sales, though. People building hackintoshes are not likely to run out and purchase new Apple hardware because of this.


RE: blind eye
By weskurtz0081 on 11/2/2009 12:30:42 PM , Rating: 2
But, do you honestly think that the people that are buying an Atom notebook and installing OSX are the type of people that might buy a Mac in the first place?

It's my opinion that these people running a "Hackinstosh" are not people that are going to buy a Mac as it is, so the difference in revenue and sales will be marginal at best.


RE: blind eye
By JediJeb on 11/2/2009 1:14:24 PM , Rating: 2
If Apple was really worried about losing control of their hardware/software combination they would stop using Intel processors and return to the IBM/Motorola processors or something else that isn't popular or x86 compatable.

It used to be interesting back when we had the battle between CISC/RISC processors.


RE: blind eye
By OmegaVX on 11/2/09, Rating: 0
RE: blind eye
By Randomblame on 11/2/2009 2:45:56 PM , Rating: 2
This isn't about piracy, many people who build hackintoshes actually purchase legitimate copies of osx. This is about apple not making it's 30% profit from hardware sales. It's just the same old apple, and it doesn't matter because we will find a way around it. I personally wouldn't want to run snow leopard on a netbook anyway


RE: blind eye
By Byte on 11/2/2009 7:56:30 PM , Rating: 2
I know netbooks can barely run XP, how does it fare with OSX? Is battery life better and is it more responsive?


A New Economics?
By DaveLessnau on 11/2/2009 11:08:50 AM , Rating: 3
Apple: the only company in the world that tries to squelch its own market penetration. If it didn't tie its software to its hardware, they could make some more money here.




RE: A New Economics?
By reader1 on 11/2/2009 12:27:56 PM , Rating: 1
Apple doesn't want to risk Mac fans using OS X netbooks instead of their upcoming tablet. Their tablet is going to be a closed platform, which means they'll make money off of Apps on it. They don't get a cut of Mac OS X app sales (but they should change that). They also will make a ton of money off of the tablet hardware, while they make no profit directly from netbook sales.

Intelligent decisions like this one are why Apple is recording record profits during one of the worst recessions in history.


RE: A New Economics?
By weskurtz0081 on 11/2/2009 12:34:17 PM , Rating: 2
The point is, these people that are installing OSX on Atom based netbooks are not in the market for a Mac to begin with. I have and might build another PC with OSX on it, but I am not going to shell out the cash for an Apple branded machine.

Two different market segments, the market segment where people are going through the trouble of installing OSX isn't the same segment that buys Macs. No difference at the end of the day in Mac revenue.


RE: A New Economics?
By Reclaimer77 on 11/2/2009 12:38:58 PM , Rating: 5
quote:
Intelligent decisions like this one are why Apple is recording record profits


Record profits for THEM, not record profits in general.

And of course they aren't hampered by the recession as much. They cater exclusively to idiots with more money than sense.


RE: A New Economics?
By icanhascpu on 11/2/09, Rating: -1
RE: A New Economics?
By inighthawki on 11/2/2009 5:27:31 PM , Rating: 5
They rate him up because they agree with what he said and think it's "worth reading." Apple's hardware is clearly overpriced and there's plenty of proof not only looking at the hardware specs available on their site, but in the form of reviews when they disassemble the iPhone, look at its cost and realize Apple marked up the price over 100%. There are no sides here, just blatantly obvious information that many people don't get for some reason.


Give thanks
By Source9 on 11/2/2009 2:17:53 PM , Rating: 3
Apple should give thanks to the hack communities. If it wasnt for such an availablility of OSX and jailbroken iphones their sales would not be near what they are today.




Cut off the nose to spite the face
By D3ADP0OL on 11/2/2009 12:13:54 PM , Rating: 2
So apple's solution to preventing piracy (or what they define as piracy) is to remove support for the most promising line of mobile, small form-factor processors from the netbook/tablet lineup?

In effect, they've crippled their own hardware configuration options to prevent people from installing OSX on non-apple products. But in doing so, they've actually STRENGTHENED the justification for making a hackintosh in the first place. Seems like circular reasoning to me, they're just going to further the incentive to hack a workaround, and the end result will still be people running OSX on hardware superior and cheaper to that which apple themselves sell




How big of an issue is this?
By monitorjbl on 11/2/2009 3:01:40 PM , Rating: 2
I mean, really. It's a pretty weird solution to an almost non-existent problem.




By Landiepete on 11/3/2009 5:06:50 AM , Rating: 2
People who are now using a Mac and thinking of upgrading ?
I imagine they would want to stick to the Apple OS, but given the choice of easily running the OS on cheaper hardware will surely prompt some of them to investigate things like Rebel EFI.
Just as there are more and less technically savvy users using Windows, I would imagine there's a significant number of Apple users that could get OSX running on PC hardware without too much trouble, especially using easily available tools currently available. And they may well choose to do so and save some money.
This category of users chooses the OS, and isn't bothered about the brand on the box.

Methinks.




why?
By Jeffk464 on 11/3/2009 9:08:14 AM , Rating: 2
Don't understand you mac loyalists, that is one controlling company. They are far worse then Microsoft for this type of thing.




Apple needs proprietary hardware.
By reader1 on 11/2/09, Rating: -1
RE: Apple needs proprietary hardware.
By zorxd on 11/2/2009 9:51:48 AM , Rating: 2
yeah so that their computers be even more expansive


RE: Apple needs proprietary hardware.
By chrgeorgeson on 11/2/2009 9:57:26 AM , Rating: 5
I wouldn't find the computer to be more expansive, I would find it to be more expensive though.


By Alexstarfire on 11/2/2009 2:08:33 PM , Rating: 2
And the Apple users would find some way to say it's superior and worth the price.


RE: Apple needs proprietary hardware.
By tastyratz on 11/2/2009 9:52:32 AM , Rating: 5
no,
apple should support and endorse an open community platform that doesn't hard limit their "customers" to overpriced hardware and limited selection.

Then again, that's like asking for world peace.


RE: Apple needs proprietary hardware.
By reader1 on 11/2/09, Rating: -1
RE: Apple needs proprietary hardware.
By Yawgm0th on 11/2/2009 10:17:28 AM , Rating: 5
quote:
Average people want computers that are limited and simple.
Average people want computers that are reasonably priced and run the programs they want and need. It's only rich, non-tech-savvy snobs that don't.


By talozin on 11/2/2009 1:05:20 PM , Rating: 2
Average people want computers that are reasonably priced and run the programs they want and need. It's only rich, non-tech-savvy snobs that don't.

Average people want computers that are limited, simple, and reasonably priced. The average person is "non-tech-savvy".


RE: Apple needs proprietary hardware.
By ipay on 11/2/09, Rating: 0
RE: Apple needs proprietary hardware.
By robinthakur on 11/2/09, Rating: -1
By ClownPuncher on 11/2/2009 12:21:51 PM , Rating: 1
I like how "geek" (read: educated technophile) is somehow an insult.


By omnicronx on 11/2/2009 4:01:51 PM , Rating: 2
Apple is correct in what way? Apples business model limits them from EVER getting a large portion or marketshare. How can you say something is correct when it is not possible to expand the idea to the entire market?

Apple knows how to sell to a niche market, thats it. While Apple does not market their products to geeks, the majority of the market (including corporate) are being bought by .. you guessed it, GEEKS! The mainstream home consumer market is a tiny piece of the total computer market, as such you cannot make the statement that what Apple is doing is 'correct'.

Now don't get me wrong, I am not against their business strategy, it makes perfect sense from a business standpoint, they make a lot of money with a far smaller share. That being said, your theory makes absolutely no sense. In this case, the mainstream is not even close to the majority of the market, nor does the casual user dictate the industry. When it comes down to it, it is the 'geeks' that dictate the market, they decide whats best for a company / organization etc..


By Marlonsm on 11/2/2009 1:15:37 PM , Rating: 2
But how will they make lots of money and control they costumers like that?


RE: Apple needs proprietary hardware.
By SavagePotato on 11/2/2009 1:41:12 PM , Rating: 2
What I think about when I read this is the irony.

Most mac zealots scream bloody murder about what a horrendous evil monopoly Microsoft is while ignoring the fact that apple is one of the most anti competetive companies in history.

When apple does it, it's smart business, when Microsoft does it there is a lawsuit.


RE: Apple needs proprietary hardware.
By reader1 on 11/2/2009 3:14:19 PM , Rating: 1
Apple is a competitive company, while Microsoft is anti-competitive. There's a big difference.


By Alexstarfire on 11/2/2009 3:46:53 PM , Rating: 1
Care to explain your logic...... if there is any?


By omnicronx on 11/2/2009 4:18:53 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
There's a big difference.
Ya, its called marketshare...

call me when you get some..

P.S

I would also like to hear how you can consider a closed source OS with closed hardware as competitive? Please explain how stifling their competition is not anti competitive? Any way you put it, blocking support is anti competitive. You don't need to be a monopoly to express this kind of behavior. I don't see MS putting out patches to stop the Palm Pre syncing with Windows Media Player.


RE: Apple needs proprietary hardware.
By C'DaleRider on 11/2/2009 9:52:51 AM , Rating: 2
Actually, it's nvidia that has to develop the proper closed chipset given the fact Apple uses Nvidia chipset boards in their computers.

At least from what I've seen, every Apple computer comes with the GeForce 9400 IGP video gpu, which I'm pretty sure Intel isn't putting into their boards.


RE: Apple needs proprietary hardware.
By Yawgm0th on 11/2/2009 10:20:12 AM , Rating: 2
Apple is using a lot of Nvidia chipsets, but not in all of its systems. I think you're right in that most current Apple systems use Nvidia chipsets, but most of the x86 Macs out there don't. And Nvidia was a fairly recent switch -- prior to 2008, it was pretty much strictly Intel motherboards and Intel IGP (Nvidia and ATI/AMD were and are both used for discreet GPU).


RE: Apple needs proprietary hardware.
By invidious on 11/2/2009 10:27:04 AM , Rating: 2
It would be a hardware change to impliment a chipset firmware that both restricts any non Apple OS and is closed to users. So it is irrelivant what chipsets are in older machines, this would only be able to be put into new machines.

Its not like Apple can instruct the hackers to upgrade their firmware to one that is going to brick their PC.


RE: Apple needs proprietary hardware.
By CZroe on 11/2/2009 12:05:05 PM , Rating: 2
You're funny. I mean, you really are. Or are you truly oblivious to the fact that they SELL the OS to EXISTING customers who own OLDER systems? The issue has *nothing to do* with running a non-OSX OS on a Mac. In fact, they encourage dual-booting it with BootCamp because it makes their systmes more useful and flexible.

Your point about hackers not upgrading is correct, but short-sighted. If it works, this is a move they made for the future. Even ignoring any potential problems and security flaws that may go unacknowledged on Atom-based hackintoshes, eventually the versions that run on them will be old and undesirable, hence, an upgrade to a Mac will be more appealing.


By invidious on 11/2/2009 10:24:03 AM , Rating: 1
That is the last thing NVidia needs to do. But yes, if Apple had any brains, paying NVidia to do that would be a better way of ensuring that only their overpaying loyal drones have the privilage of using their shitty OS.

Buying a Mac is already like buying a car with all of the screws and caps welded down, I guess you might as well weld the hood closed while you are at it.


RE: Apple needs proprietary hardware.
By Yawgm0th on 11/2/2009 10:06:18 AM , Rating: 5
quote:
Apple should pay Intel to build special versions of CPUs and chipsets just for Apple's computers. That would keep companies, like Psystar, from free-loading off of Apple.
Steve probably agrees with you on that. I don't. I think it's a bad business model, and that Apple is basically giving the finger to a huge market that it would otherwise be in.

If Apple raised the price of OSX -- let's say to two to four times its current price -- and allowed limited third-party support on cheaper computers, I think Mac would all of a sudden have a much larger share of the OS market.

The view towards third parties is all wrong. Psystar isn't "free-loading" of of Apple; they're ensuring OS sales from which Apple gets profit it otherwise purpose. How many people actually put together a Hackintosh that would have bought a Mac? There's no way of knowing for sure, but logically I think it's safe to assume that the lost revenue on hardware sales is more than made up for by the increased sales of the operating system.

At the end of the day, Apple's place in the PC and even server markets is that of a software company. It does very, very limited hardware engineering for computers. Yet, it has managed to build a misguided, cult-like following that allows it to profit heavily from hardware. In its attempts to protect those profits so, it has cut itself off from a far more-profitable OS market in which it could actually compete.


By Maharajamd on 11/2/2009 10:32:37 AM , Rating: 1
^ I agree with this.


RE: Apple needs proprietary hardware.
By Zandros on 11/2/2009 10:36:47 AM , Rating: 1
quote:
The view towards third parties is all wrong. Psystar isn't "free-loading" of of Apple; they're ensuring OS sales from which Apple gets profit it otherwise purpose. How many people actually put together a Hackintosh that would have bought a Mac? There's no way of knowing for sure, but logically I think it's safe to assume that the lost revenue on hardware sales is more than made up for by the increased sales of the operating system.


To be able to say that, please show me your cost/revenue analysis of the development of Mac OS X. How many reaping the fruits of the Hackintosh community actually buy a retail copy? Furthermore, if we take your "two or four times the price" suggestion to heart, suddenly the OS costs more than the computer. I'm sure that'll go over well with the netbook cheapskates.

quote:
At the end of the day, Apple's place in the PC and even server markets is that of a software company. It does very, very limited hardware engineering for computers. Yet, it has managed to build a misguided, cult-like following that allows it to profit heavily from hardware. In its attempts to protect those profits so, it has cut itself off from a far more-profitable OS market in which it could actually compete.


They do less hardware engineering than HP; Dell and Acer? Why is it so hard to accept vertical integration?


RE: Apple needs proprietary hardware.
By Yawgm0th on 11/2/2009 11:10:07 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
To be able to say that, please show me your cost/revenue analysis of the development of Mac OS X. How many reaping the fruits of the Hackintosh community actually buy a retail copy?
I don't have one. I can't possibly come up with one I don't make up. I made it pretty clear I was making an educated conjecture, if you'll read it again.
quote:
There's no way of knowing for sure, but logically I think it's safe to assume that
I am assuming that many, if not most Hackintosh users actually pay for the software -- Psystar does pay for the software and its hardware purchasers do as well. If third-party manufacturers are allowed to produce Mac-compatible systems, they would also include a licensed copy of the OS.

quote:
Furthermore, if we take your "two or four times the price" suggestion to heart, suddenly the OS costs more than the computer. I'm sure that'll go over well with the netbook cheapskates.
Admittedly, I was incorrect on the price of a full retail copy of Mac OS X. Still, they could increase the price of the full retail copy. Obviously pre-loaded OEM copies would be much, much less. my point is that Apple could price similarly or higher than Microsoft and still be at profit-maximizing volumes.

quote:

They do less hardware engineering than HP; Dell and Acer?
Yes; Apple also has higher profit margins on hardware, but much lower volumes. HP, Dell, and Acer are primarily hardware distributors and work on high volumes and low margins. Apple is a software and consumer electronics company used to the outrageous margins of software and the high margins of electronics.
quote:
Why is it so hard to accept vertical integration?
It's not hard at all. Apple can continue its hardware business and continue to be considered the luxury computer for trendy hipsters and wealthy old people. But by opening up the OS for cheaper, third-party manufacturers, it can bring in huge volumes of users at much higher profit margins than even the outrageously priced hardware sells for. Vertical integration shouldn't come at the cost of 90% of a more-profitable market than that has been integrated.


RE: Apple needs proprietary hardware.
By robinthakur on 11/2/2009 12:40:59 PM , Rating: 1
The vertical integration market seems to be fine for Apple so far, they are making mad profits. Of course the only thing different between them and pc's is the OS and a better focused design team (and the corresponding price difference)

Apple stuff occupies a premium price-point completely on purpose to compensate for their lower volumes. There needs to be some segmentation within the off-the-shelf consumer market, and Apple's are 'aspirational'. They are well designed and well made and they deliberately don't cater for the value market.

Its always amazed me that people like HP, Samsung or Asus haven't employed better designers in the past. Is Apple the only one who can seriously design decent looking hardware? So much of Apple's appeal is its beautiful design and clean uncluttered lines. No matter what, designs from elsewhere in the industry rarely illicit the same kudos as Apple, they nearly always fall down on the smallest details, or they can't help but add a geeky little touch that makes it look ugly, so I think its a fundamental difference in focus within the industry. This is especially telling when Asus makes a few of the components of the macbook (or they used to)...


By Yawgm0th on 11/2/2009 1:06:07 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
The vertical integration market seems to be fine for Apple so far, they are making mad profits. Of course the only thing different between them and pc's is the OS and a better focused design team (and the corresponding price difference)
Apple makes good profit margins on a low volume. Microsoft makes better profit margins on a much higher volume (in regards to Mac software and hardware sales compared to Windows). It's no comparison. Selling software would be more profitable for Apple.

quote:
Apple stuff occupies a premium price-point completely on purpose to compensate for their lower volumes. There needs to be some segmentation within the off-the-shelf consumer market, and Apple's are 'aspirational'. They are well designed and well made and they deliberately don't cater for the value market.
I agree partially. Macs have the perception of being well made and well designed because they appear to be at a higher segment of the market. They aren't actually any better. Regardless, this is exactly my point. Selling to the mass market via 3rd party hardware would result in very little competition with its existing hardware market. People who buy Macs now would largely continue to be Macs. How many Mac owners run Windows? It's about the perception of the total system. Heck, I could argue that the availability of third-party systems with Mac OS X would only improve the perception of "true" Macs.

quote:

Its always amazed me that people like HP, Samsung or Asus haven't employed better designers in the past. Is Apple the only one who can seriously design decent looking hardware? So much of Apple's appeal is its beautiful design and clean uncluttered lines. No matter what, designs from elsewhere in the industry rarely illicit the same kudos as Apple, they nearly always fall down on the smallest details, or they can't help but add a geeky little touch that makes it look ugly, so I think its a fundamental difference in focus within the industry. This is especially telling when Asus makes a few of the components of the macbook (or they used to)...
Not only do I disagree with your assessment (which gets back to the market perception of Macs and Apple), but I think it's important to remember than HP, Samsung, Asus, and the like are corporate entities, not people. ;)


RE: Apple needs proprietary hardware.
By chaos386 on 11/2/2009 1:01:37 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Apple is a software and consumer electronics company used to the outrageous margins of software and the high margins of electronics.


Apple has always considered itself to be a hardware company (as for how it was a consumer electronics company before the iPod, you kinda lost me), and the only reason for developing their own OS is to differentiate themselves from other computer vendors. That's why they fight hardware competitors (Psystar), but embrace software "competitors" (Bootcamp), rather than the other way around.


By Yawgm0th on 11/2/2009 1:12:08 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
Apple has always considered itself to be a hardware company (as for how it was a consumer electronics company before the iPod, you kinda lost me)
It wasn't, but the iPod isn't exactly a new device. I mentioned CEs because it's a very different market from PCs with much better margins. I can't say "Apple is a software company" without clarifying that Apple does make CEs, but that they aren't very pertinent to the topic at hand.

quote:
and the only reason for developing their own OS is to differentiate themselves from other computer vendors. That's why they fight hardware competitors (Psystar), but embrace software "competitors" (Bootcamp), rather than the other way around.
Apple should embrace both. Psystar is not hurting Apple's bottom line. Psystar operates in a completely different market from Apple yet provides Apple with access to that market via software sales. Apple not only gets those additional software sales, but doesn't even have to support the computer as it would with a Mac.


RE: Apple needs proprietary hardware.
By overzealot on 11/2/2009 11:49:10 PM , Rating: 2
I'm sorry, but I consider Steve Jobs' opinion better than yours.
Besides, you can't ignore the facts:

- They use generic off the shelf hardware in all their products.
- They outsource ALL manufacturing to other companies.
- The only thing that makes their product ANY different from anyone else's is the software and case design.

So, could call them a Software and Product Design company, but hardware is too much of a stretch.


RE: Apple needs proprietary hardware.
By chaos386 on 11/3/2009 1:22:58 PM , Rating: 2
They're a hardware company in the sense that they sell hardware. Dell and HP also use off the shelf components, but I don't think anyone would consider them to be software companies. ;)


By overzealot on 11/4/2009 10:29:13 AM , Rating: 2
Touché.


RE: Apple needs proprietary hardware.
By nafhan on 11/2/2009 11:02:58 AM , Rating: 2
Right now they can come pretty close to guaranteeing that their hardware and software will work perfectly for the same reason that consoles "just work" - by limiting options. By my count - between all Mac lines (desktop and laptop) - they only offer have 13 different computers for sale. Way less than any of the major PC OEM's support and exponentially fewer configurations than MS has to worry about. Start allowing and supporting the Mac OS on arbitrary hardware, and the reliability that their image is built on goes down the tubes. I don't see this as a negative for Mac owners, just something they need to realize going in. Console owners vs. PC gamers are in a similar boat: potentially simpler and more reliable experience, but you're also giving up flexibility and options.
Anyway, it also gives one an appreciation for just how well Windows (and Linux) do work.


RE: Apple needs proprietary hardware.
By Yawgm0th on 11/2/2009 11:19:37 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Right now they can come pretty close to guaranteeing that their hardware and software will work perfectly for the same reason that consoles "just work" - by limiting options.
This argument is completely borked from the start. Big OEM Windows computers "just work" at least as well as Macs despite the exponentially greater amount of hardware supported by Windows. Macs, as of late, have at least as many hardware and software problems as Windows PCs. Unfortunately, current-gen consoles are nearing that level of reliability as well. We're not in the year 2000 anymore. A good Windows PC is about as reliable as an XBox 360, PS3, or Mac.

Reliability and functionality of hardware in an OS is up to the hardware manufacturer, ultimately. Windows works on so many computers despite Microsoft designing very few drivers of its own for a reason. Hardware makers design the drivers because no one wants hardware that doesn't work on Windows. If Mac becomes a mainstream OS, the same will apply to Mac.


RE: Apple needs proprietary hardware.
By theapparition on 11/2/2009 12:07:46 PM , Rating: 2
Probably shouldn't have included the Xbox 360 in as a benchmark for reliability.


By robinthakur on 11/2/2009 12:30:10 PM , Rating: 1
LOL! Agreed, the 360 has all the disadvantages which consoles have never historically had, namely very poor reliability, overheating and very noisy. MS are darned lucky they avoided a complete recall.


By palladium on 11/2/2009 7:36:20 PM , Rating: 2
+1.


"A lot of people pay zero for the cellphone ... That's what it's worth." -- Apple Chief Operating Officer Timothy Cook

DailyTech Poll
Do you use copy/paste on your smartphone? 




17 Comments









botimage
Copyright 2010 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki