The Mac is doooomed (tell me I'm crazy)

[ScottW]

Ah! I disagree. Apple has been promoting the Mac more than I have ever seen. The Mac/PC guy ads are very creative and some of the most informative Mac commercials ever made. I rarely watch a show on TV that are in real peoples homes, doing moves, or decorating changes that there is not a Mac on their computer desk. I mean, I could almost say it is crazy the number of Macs people have on these shows vs some other platform.

Look at Apple's financial numbers, the Mac is growing like crazy, 48% of those who buy a Mac at an apple store are NEW owners.

If Apple didn't care about Mac, they wouldn't have moved it to Intel, they wouldn't be marketing it, and they would remain cutting edge on OS X.

The lack of new Macs at MacWorld just means that Steve had something more exciting to announce... and I am sorry to say, that a bump in the processor speed is not going to dazzle the crowd. We all know that, we Apple fanatics like to be dazzled!

I would like to see some new form factors for the different models, but quite honestly, I think the Intel transition took up more than a few spare cycles of peoples time. Changing the design was probably not the best way to come out with new hardware. But, the MacBooks are different, and I bet we will see some transition to new form factors in the next 12 months for one ore more systems.

[Qion]

I understand all the logical sequences behind your argument, Mikuro. However, the entire time I was reading your post, I couldn't help but to hear the PC guy say "..and you guys are selling like hotcakes, it's time to pull out all the stops..."

Apple will NEVER drop the Mac. Remember the 80's?; Apple is not about to tear out their heart and run along with the PC market because of money. They already have an exorbant amount of that stuff.

I wouldn't believe for a second that Steve Jobs would drop the very basis of creation, the very machine that fueled his passion and his career. He wouldn't drop each one of us on our asses, leaving us nothing but the bitter taste of whatever MS gives us after Vista. There will be a Mac OS as long as there are supporters of the Mac OS; hasn't that been proven before? I know the success of Apple is no longer tied to their hardware, but why the hell would they stop tying the incredibleness of their UI to the machines they've set their souls in for the past 20 years?

The change from Apple Computer, Inc to Apple Inc is nothing more than what ITMS was to ITS. While we can eliminate sylables because of expansion, we cannot eliminate basis because of expansion.

[Mikuro]

Originally Posted by ScottW

Ah! I disagree. Apple has been promoting the Mac more than I have ever seen. The Mac/PC guy ads are very creative and some of the most informative Mac commercials ever made. I rarely watch a show on TV that are in real peoples homes, doing moves, or decorating changes that there is not a Mac on their computer desk. I mean, I could almost say it is crazy the number of Macs people have on these shows vs some other platform.

As far as the advertising goes, that's more the hardware. As I've outlined, Apple's hardware ("Macs") will continue to be a vital part of Apple's business even if OS X ("the Mac") is killed. When was the last time Apple advertised the Mac OS itself? I can't remember.

Of course, I can't blame them; an OS is not an easy thing to advertise. You can show the genie effect or exposé all you want at Macworld and geeks will scream like little girls over a boy band, but that kind of thing won't sell on a TV spot aimed at the general public. I get that.

But the fact remains that the things they've been advertising are not so much the Mac as A) Their hardware, B) iLife, and C) iPod/iTunes. None of these are dependent on the Mac OS in the course I described.

In fact, the advertising of their hardware would be vital to the transition, because it increases their brand recognition, and that's what it will take to get Windows users to buy WindowsMacs if/when Apple starts shipping them.

If Apple didn't care about Mac, they wouldn't have moved it to Intel, they wouldn't be marketing it, and they would remain cutting edge on OS X.

What would they have done instead? That's the key question here, and I can't think of a good answer.

Originally Posted by limike28

I think if Apple was going to kill off Macs, or OS X there would have been other times that they would have been more likely to it.

Again, what would they have done instead? WHEN would have been a better time? (And if there were a better time in '97 or earlier, I don't think that matters, because I certainly don't think Apple had any intention of dropping the Mac OS back then. If that's what they're planning, I believe it's a Jobs-era strategy.)

[ScottW]

Well, unlike Windows, the Mac and the operating system are one in the same. iLife doesn't run on anything but OS X. The ease of use they promote, isn't just the applications, it is the operating system.

They don't have two products to sell, the have one... the Mac. OS X is worthless without a Mac. If you want to sell someone something, you have to sell them the whole thing, not just one. If you promoted OS X and people went in buying it... and then return it because it doesn't install on a PC? Thats lame. People would be mad.

To me, they are the same thing. You can't have one without the other. Also remember, while the OS is great, it's not the OS people are concerned with.

When people ask me about if Macs can do things, they don't ask me, "Can you double click and open folder?", "Does it have drop down menus?", Does it have icons?", "Does it include COPY/PASTE?".

The questions I hear is, "Does it run Office?", "Does it manage photos?", "Its virus free right?". Granted, the last question does apply to the OS, but guess what... Apple talks about that in their commercials. So, that is one example of the OS at work in the advertising.

[RacerX]

Corporations, like most people, are pretty much all about self-interest. If you wouldn't do something that would hurt your income, why would you think Apple would?

Lets run the numbers here guys... which we will keep pretty simple for the sake of argument.

Lets set some easy boundaries... like

1. The average cost of an Apple computer is $2000 (easy number to work with, and about the middle of the prices for all of Apple's computers).
2. Apple's profit margin is 30% for it's computers (it averages about $600 for each computer sold).
3. Mac OS X would cost $130 for PCs, and Apple makes $100 on each copy sold.
4. Apple's market share is 6%.

Given these numbers, would Apple start selling Mac OS X for PCs?

Lets see... basically what we have here is that for every computer not sold because someone bought a PC and Mac OS X, Apple loses $500. The only way to make this up is to sell 5 more copies of Mac OS X for PCs for each Apple computer not bought because of a copy of Mac OS X.

What if half the people who would have bought Apple computers bought Mac OS X and another companies PC instead?

Market share is the amount of new systems sold within a quarter by a given company (and often times with a given OS). If half of Apple's market share stopped buying Apple computers to buy Mac OS X and another companies PC, Apple would see a drop in profits of about 42%.

But people have always said that Apple's market share would jump if you could put Mac OS X on any PC... right?

What if the market share of Mac OS X on computers jumped to 12% because of this? Apple would still be seeing a 25% drop in profits compared to when they were selling Mac OS X only on their own hardware. In fact, Apple would have to jump to 21% to brake even with the profits they had at 6% if half of those sales were lost to Mac OS X on PCs.

What would happen if everyone bought Mac OS X for PCs and no Apple computers? How much market share would Apple need to brake even?

Apple would need to hit 36% market share to be as profittable selling only Mac OS X for PCs as they are currently selling Mac OS X on only Apple hardware. And since almost 35% of Windows installations are pirated (and there is no reason to think that Apple would fare any better), Apple would have to hit 49% in order to make what they are making right now with their 6%. But if only the same people who were buying Apple computers before continued to buy Mac OS X for PCs (so that original 6%), Apple would see a drop in profits of 83%.

But here is an even bigger problem... Mac OS X for PCs wouldn't be counted in market share unless it is pre-installed on hardware. So even if 49% of PC hardware ended up running Mac OS X, only the systems sold with it already on them would be counted as Mac OS X market share and the rest would still be Windows market share numbers.



People who bring up NeXT
I'm not going to name names, but someone brought up the fact that NeXT went to PCs.

NeXT never (not once) had a profitable quarter making hardware. They were never able to sell enough systems to pay for the resources that they invested to make those systems. As most people should know, the more of an item you make (and sell), the less costly it becomes to produce and the more profitable that item becomes. NeXT hardware never even approached profitability. They only sold (in the full run of NeXT hardware) about 50,000 units (from 1989 to 1993).

Further, NeXT was about to drop OPENSTEP as a product when Apple acquired them. They had worked with Sun to port the NEXTSTEP look and feel to Solaris and were about to drop their OS line in favor of just selling Enterprise Objects and WebObjects. There was no profit in selling their OS.

Why... and how, can anyone compare that to Apple today?


Additionally, Apple has wanted to drop Computer from their name since the early 90s. It was the Beetles that had forced them to stay Apple Computer for this long (about 15 years longer than they wanted to).


There is no reason for Apple to stop making computers because it is a massively profitable business for them. There is no reason for Apple to release Mac OS X for PCs because it directly undercuts a massively profitable business for them.

You guys may throw away money for no reason, but don't expect Apple to do the same. Until there is a plus for Apple's bottom line to any of these scenarios, it just isn't going to happen.

[Lt Major Burns]

the whole theory behind the mac commercials is that the mac os is better than windows. what those adverts are actually saying is "hi, I'm the Mac OS", "and i'm Windows"

plug that new digital camera in; "oh it just works". "I have no virus's". "My upgrade cycle is problem free", "i can make a studio quality home movie really easily", "i don't crash".

these are all attributes of the Mac OS working with the closed environment Macintosh, not independently of each other.

the Intel Switch, this aggressive ad campaign, even the iPod are all designed to help Apple ship more macs. iPod started out at $499. now the full fat iPod is less than $250, with better parts. apple are selling these with a very small profit margin - they make far more profit off a full mac - and they are selling more than ever. the apple stores, they way they are laid out even, use the iPod to entice people in, the iPods always being on the front tables, with macs further back.


i think the name name change is a way of saying to people "look you can trust our products. we aren't a computer company that doesn't know anything aobut phones - we are a diverse electronics company"

[Mikuro]

Whoah whoah whoah, RacerX, you have it all backwards. I'm not saying Apple should or will sell OS X for regular PCs. That would be crazy for even more reasons than you described. I'm saying the exact opposite: that Apple could (and I fear will) focus solely on their hardware (and a few apps like iLife).

However, if they get to the point where they can sell their hardware without OS X, as I outlined, then perhaps it would make sense. It would certainly be preferable (from my perspective if not Apple's) to killing OS X entirely.

Well, unlike Windows, the Mac and the operating system are one in the same. iLife doesn't run on anything but OS X. The ease of use they promote, isn't just the applications, it is the operating system.
...
To me, they are the same thing. You can't have one without the other. Also remember, while the OS is great, it's not the OS people are concerned with.

I agree, you can't have the Mac OS without a Mac. That much is obvious. But the reverse is not true (or at least, it doesn't need to be). You can use a Mac without the Mac OS. There are a lot of Windows users who would love to do just that. At some point, I think Apple will sell to them. That's one step in the process.

iLife could easily run on Windows, and would be another necessary step in the transition.

The whole point I'm trying to make is that Apple is moving (whether deliberately or not) to the point where their hardware can stand without the Mac OS. Once that happens, OS X can easily disappear. That won't happen tomorrow. No way. It won't happen in a year, either. But in 2-5 years, Apple could easily complete the necessary steps, as I outlined.

Someone mentioned the advantages to the Mac OS. Many of these advantages could disappear in that timeframe. I doubt Vista will be so virus-prone, for example. (And the whole virus issue has only been relevant for a short time, anyway. It's certainly not a reason why I'm a Mac user.) But ultimately, it doesn't matter; profit matters. If they can make a bigger profit selling Windows machines, they will. Again, business-wise, the Mac OS exists to sell hardware. If it's not needed for that, it's just not needed.



Actually, I should probably revise my original outline a bit. I forgot to mention Boot Camp 1.0 (i.e., the one that will ship with Leopard). I expect this to allow for Classic-like compatibility with Windows apps, just like the new version of Parallels does. With that in place, Apple can justify shipping Macs with Windows in addition to OS X much more easily (not immediately, but at some point).

[RacerX]

Originally Posted by Mikuro

Whoah whoah whoah, RacerX, you have it all backwards. I'm not saying Apple should or will sell OS X for regular PCs. That would be crazy for even more reasons than you described. I'm saying the exact opposite: that Apple could (and I fear will) focus solely on their hardware (and a few apps like iLife).

However, if they get to the point where they can sell their hardware without OS X, as I outlined, then perhaps it would make sense. It would certainly be preferable (from my perspective if not Apple's) to killing OS X entirely.

And Apple could fold the iTunes Music store and start installing Zune's software on all new iPods.



But not in Jobs' life time.

Actually, Apple would not only lose the advantages their hardware currently has by dropping Mac OS X... they would lose the profit margins as well.

Apple sells closed systems so that they can't have their advantages used against them.

It should be noted that had people not found a way to install Windows on Intel Macs, Apple would not have released Boot Camp. Boot Camp was strictly in response to the successful hacking of the hardware. Boot Camp was released within days of a successful solution to installing Windows on Macs.

As it stands, Windows on Macs is the worse thing that we (the Mac community) currently face... and the same is true for Apple. Apple used to be able to count on Mac users to be return customers for years to come (because Apple is the only maker of Macs). What has currently happened is that people are buying Macs for the first time and then using Windows on them. Windows on a Mac is no better than Windows on a PC... hence, there is no reason for those people to buy a Mac the next time they need a new computer.

That loss of dedicated users is very troubling for Apple. Mac OS X adoption has slowed while hardware sales have increased. Once the fad factor of hardware is gone (usually within a few days of purchase from what I've seen), these Windows users using Mac hardware start asking why they paid so much for the hardware (and a separate installation of Windows).

Apple has never tried to make money on software. It is a hardware company. It sells hardware with the best software on the planet to differentiate itself, but that is it. This holds true for Apple Computers as much as for iPods.

The day Apple starts selling iPods using WinCE or Zune's software, then you can start the sky is falling dance about Apple dropping Mac OS X. Odds are this would happen only after Jobs is dead (and even then I'll put money on the ghost of Jobs terrorizing any Apple Executive that tries to do this).

Seeing as Mac OS X is the foundations of the iPhone, you couldn't be further from reality of what is happening at Apple right now if you tried.