“Toss it back and forth long enough and a nugget of conventional wisdom eventually comes to be treated as fact. With regard to Apple and the Macintosh, the prime example is the idea that Apple made a catastrophic error in the 1980s by not licensing the Macintosh,” John Gruber writes for Daring Fireball. “This idea has been repeated so often by so many sources that today, most people, even Mac users, simply take it at face value: If only Apple had licensed the Macintosh, they could have been Microsoft.”
“But this is not a fact. It’s conjecture, and barring a time machine, it can never be proven. But even if you could go back to 1984 and show Apple’s then-executives a glimpse of the future and the Mac’s eventual market share – merely “licensing” the Mac very likely would not have made a difference. In fact, in an alternate universe where Apple had licensed the Macintosh or Mac OS in the mid-80s, things could have ended up worse for Apple, as in bankrupt-and-out-of-business worse,” Gruber writes.
Full article, a very interesting read, here.
It’s indisputable that Apple would have become “Microsoft”, because it was Bill Gates himself who urged them to license out the Mac OS. There was no other competition. Only after Apple refused did Microsoft start making Windows.
P.S. First post!
Who knows. I do know I love Apple as it is.
The pc became and by extension M$ became a monopoly because IBM failed to secure their own interest when designing their first pc.
Their BIOS was reverse engineered which allowed clones. Clones needes an OS. People were buying IBMs for business and of course bought the cheaper clones. Momentum took over from there and because of IBMs lack of foresight (they couldn’t envision people wanting computers so figured they’d sell a few) they signed a non-exclusive contract with M$.
Had Apple got into that game they would have gone under long ago.
The very idea of “Apple could be Microsoft” means that Apple would have blunted it’s creative energy trying to make software for dozens of different manufacturers using hundreds of different components. One of the things that has made Apple is Job’s vision to “make the whole widget.” I would like to see Apple with more market share but I also believe that a huge part of Apple’s corporate psyche is the underdog mentality that has forced them to take risks and be more inovative than any other company. We would not have iMacs and iPhoto and iPods if Apple had “become Microsoft.”
uhhh.. was IBM looking to license from Apple!?
MS played the ‘we’ll help you kill Apple’ card..
It’s indisputable that Apple would have become “Microsoft”, because it was Bill Gates himself who urged them to license out the Mac OS. There was no other competition. Only after Apple refused did Microsoft start making Windows.
It didn’t happen, It can’t happen, and it’s history. Expend your creativity on today, tomorrow and next month.
At first, I thought they were beating a dead horse with such a worthless article, but this lame filler piece piece is beating a long decayed horse.
Jon has it 100% correct. There is a vast difference between Apple’s philosophy of being, both, innovative and user-friendly by means of making “the whole widget” and the philosophy of Microsoft by making what ever cheap piece of crap they can get the public to swallow… by whatever means.
Apple will never be aa large as Microsoft because the general population is more like Microsoft than Apple; they prefer to follow the herd regardless of their troubles and inconveniences rather than spend a few microwatts of neural energy to actually think about what option is best in the long term.
People, as a whole, are total mindless idiots. Need proof? TV programming popularity. Political governments. Seat belts. Guns. etc…
One most possess logic to see what is logical.
MacJack, the conditions were set well before the Mac was intrroduced. People were buying PCs for business and choosing IBM over the IIe, entrenching DOS as the OS of choice.
If there was an opportunity to Apple to become “the Microsoft” it would have had to happen with the Apple III or Lisa.
Why is it that everyone thinks that the M$ licencing model is the only one that would have worked? Doesn’t anyone take into account that Apple’s prime visionary, Steve Jobs was gone from Apple between 1985 and 1997? Apple could have won those battles without licensing. They didn’t because they lacked vision and direction. The war, however, isn’t over yet. The cracks are beginning to form in the M$ empire and I don’t think Linux is poised to take over. They don’t have the user experience, the apps or the brand recognition that Apple does.
MacJack, I don’t know if you read the article and are completely dismissing it or if you’re talking out of ignorance of the facts. Daring Fireball makes a very convinving argument about why Apple not only didn’t License the OS, but why they *couldn’t* license it. He touches on several points in Apple’s history and the differences between Microsoft’s growth of success vs Apple’s. It’s a very good read, and once you read the whole thing, I think you’ll look at the whole “Apple should have License their OS” argument in a completely different light.
“My explanation is simply that the corporate market went with IBM-compatible machines at the start of the PC revolutions because that seemed like the safest route. �No one ever got fired for choosing IBM� was the IT mantra of the �70s and �80s. Every subsequent step from that point onward was simply the path of least resistance. Switching to the Mac � or any other different hardware platform for that matter � would have been risky and expensive. It�s easier to do what everyone else is doing, and it�s easier to stick with what you already have.”
<snip>
“The fact is that the Windows monopoly is an anomaly, and exists only because of IBM�s decision to license the DOS operating system from Microsoft, rather than buying it or writing their own from scratch. Microsoft didn�t choose or decide the �open� nature of the IBM-compatible hardware business � they just went along for the ride and then took full advantage of their fortunate position.”
True enough.
I think Apple is the innovative company as it is because they aren’t the biggest player. They need to innovate because they are small.
Also, now because apple isn’t the biggest player they are almost no virusses
So i prefer it like it is
Gruber is very insightful, and has the background and experience to synthesize some very compelling arguments. I am often nipping around the edges of an issue when lo and behold, an essay from Gruber puts it all together for me. I think this analysis is exactly right as far as it goes. We need the follow-up on why Apple didn’t win anyway. Does anyone else think that some advertising might have helped?
While you are at Daring Fireball, be sure to read “Broken Windows” and “So Witty”.
Mike
Thanks Dak, I’ve since read the whole piece and accept that if the Mac OS had been ported to IBM-compatibles it would have been quite different to the original Mac OS we know (like, a ground-up rewrite).
But the point remains that Bill Gates offered Apple the opportunity to become the standard, and it knocked him back. The Mac OS running on Intel might not have been as good as the one running on 640×0, but it would still probably have been better than DOS/Windows.
That’s true, MacJack, but would we be touting the Mac OS today with the same vim and vigor that we do, or would we feel altogether differently? I for one think that Apple has done well over the years keeping to it’s current path. Other companies are driven by their bottom line. Apple has no debt and billions in the bank, they don’t have to worry about the bottom line as much because they’re on much more solid footing. They can innovate, lead the way without the pressure that other companies have just to keep up. That’s one of the biggest differences I see with the tech world today. All because Apple chose the path it did.
John Gruber is always worth a read. Excellent article.
Apple didn’t lose the battle with M$. I consider them the winner.
Minolta doesn’t make as many cameras as Nikon but I bought and love my Minolta.
Mercury doesn’t make as many cars as GM but I bought and love my Merc.
I don’t expect or care if Apple expands to own the desktop world. In my mind they make the best computers for what I want to do. It can get no better than that.
Long live Apple.
Apple lost the market share battle because they were far more interested in other things betwewen 1986-1990.
The whole situation does make me wonder:
If Apple had developed parallel OS’s, one to operate on Mac only with integrated hardware and operating system, on one or run on Intel machines, what might have happened.
The Gold version would have been OSX on Mac hardware, with the functionality that we know and love.
And the Lead, Tin, whatever version developed for Intel machines with all their “hardware store” drivers, peripherals, etc. Knowing that it would not/could not be as good.
As someone said, it would have to have been better than Windows.
After all, who says the parallel versions have to be equal?
Why do people assume that a Windows version would drag down the Mac version? It is not necessarily so!
If you want the version that runs on Intel, you make that choice and accept the limitations, and I think many people might then choose to upgrade to the Gold version, after having seen that OSX on Intel would be better than Windows. Logical step to OSX on Mac hardware.
Apple could never have been a mainstream business computer. It was always friendly, and easy to use. Businesses hate that.
The business world has a serious, severe disposition. They never would have accepted a computer that smiles at you and greets you with a “welcome.”
Windows corporate logo as greeting is more their speed.
Read the article. It’s simple, the IBM and it’s clones simply were incappable of using the Mac OS for years after the Mac was released in 1984. They might have released something but it wouldn’t have been the Mac OS of the day. Or they could have released a good Mac OS copy but the clones that could have run it would have cost twice as much as Dos machines of the day. We all know how business would have steered clear of those. Apple never would have become rich as Microsoft even with Billy Gates helping them.
The 128K or even the 512K Mac were not business machines. The screens were smallish; you couldn’t connect a Telex to it; Lotus didn’t run on it … even our letters looked funny until we learned some font etiquette. The Apple III failed; the Lisa was a non-starter….
Apple missed the business market either because it didn’t understand that market or it couldn’t deliver what they wanted at a competitive price. Without the business market then, Apple’s market potential became limited.
The Daring Fireball article was otherwise good.
Ray, you wrote:
“Apple could never have been a mainstream business computer. It was always friendly, and easy to use. Businesses hate that.
The business world has a serious, severe disposition. They never would have accepted a computer that smiles at you and greets you with a “welcome.””
I disagree, Ray. Although it is true of bad businesses, which are found in the world in precisely the same percentage as bad people.
Good business would have accepted if they had been given the opportunity to know about it, which Apple did not seriously decide to give them.
My businesses started with an Apple IIe, which even though a DOS computer worked well, and the local dealer that sold it to me wanted to keep selling to businesses when the Macs came out, but Apple just did not care about the business world. The dealer did keep selling them for another 15 years, but finally they stopped because they got no help marketing to business from Apple.
They stopped selling Macs, I now bought for 5 years from another local Apple independent who is actually better, but that is because of their own efforts.
I am glad to see that OSX, G5s, Server may actually help Apple to turn the corner in the business world. Virtually every business owner that I have talked to in the last 15 years has told me: Yes, I wish we could use a Mac.
Most of them were wrong in thinking they couldn’t, but that is another issue that Apple did not help with.
But that may be changing, I hope.
Hi, kenh!
I agree with you. SOME businesses would have accepted Apple. But most big businesses were very leary of the machine. They never saw the Mac as a SERIOUS business machine.
As for its capabilities…I know that Citibank used Apples w/Visicalc for awhile…but eventually turned to IBM/Microsoft. Choosing Apple would take guts�and if individuals in companies had guts, they usually wouldn’t get support from their bossses.