“Arguments of whether Apple should license its operating system are almost as old as the company itself… Even now, some commentators call on the company to license the OS in order to build market share. Such arguments seem to be based around the argument that in order for Apple to be truly successful it needs to be matching its Seattle competitor in market share. Not so,” Seb Janacek writes for Silicon.com.
“Apple isn’t pitching itself against Windows – that’s just an easy and recognisable target for its marketing. It’s more accurate to say it’s competing against PC makers – Dell, HP, Lenovo and the others. Even its ‘Get a Mac’ marketing is misunderstood in this respect,” Janacek writes.
“Will Apple license the OS X? Not a chance. It makes its margins on hardware, not software. Licensing the OS would dilute sales of high-end Macs and the company is selling more of those than ever before. If the hardware is ‘what’ the company makes its money from, the operating system and the software is the ‘why,'” Janacek writes.
Full article here.
Janacek’s argument makes sense. Ten years ago. iPhone and iPod revenue would allow for Apple to weather any revenue hit that cloning the Mac in whatever fashion (from limited to one partner to wide-open OS X licensing) would inflict. Macintosh is not Apple’s sole source of revenue anymore. And, even with cloning, Apple would still sell Macs. We’re not arguing that Apple should license Mac OS X, only that Janacek’s argument fails when you look at the sources of Apple’s revenue today, as our own SteveJack explained over three and a half years ago: iPod success opens door to Mac OS X on Intel – March 04, 2004
Not going to happen. iCal it!
Hmmm… no, they should not license it. I agree thus, but what is clear is that the emphasis must be, as indeed it is, placed on switching and compatibility if there isn’t going to be a major EULA change.
I agree with the wandering joe, but how do you iCal something that isn’t going to happen?
“To do great software, you have to make your own hardware.”
Comment from: Passerby
“””I agree with the wandering joe, but how do you iCal something that isn’t going to happen?”””
You iCal it for 1 Infinite Loop…
I can see it happening quite easily. I haven’t forgotten Rhapsody 5… or OpenStep… They shall live on!!
Apple is a HARDWARE COMPANY.
Although they don’t produce enough HARDWARE CHOICE!!
Like toughbooks, matte screen computers, low cost towers, subcompact notebooks, gaming machines, upgradable machines and the endless list of other complaints of the industry/public in general.
I was visibly shocked when they offered Bootcamp, but I believe this was a “fall back” state in case OS X didn’t take off. Then Apple would just become another PC vendor and license Windows.
Microsoft isn’t afraid of Bootcamp, because they tied a lot of the working of their operating system to proprietary DirectX video cards.
Sure you can run Vista on OS X under Fusion2 or Bootcamp, but you can’t run many programs, especially many 3D games.
What Apple should do is allow a EASY INSTALL DEMO of OS X for Wintellites who are ready to dump XP.
This way they can try it and love it, buy a Mac.
But of course Apple is stupid beyond recognition as always. But not as bad as Microsoft.
God it’s hard being a genius, everyone just seems to be stupid.
Good Lord, not again.
MDN Magic Word “soon” my ass
Apple writes software to sell hardware. That has been their mantra for the last 25 years.
I am glad someone “discovered” this.
The article’s author gets it right. Apple’s true competition has always been other hardware makers, not Microsoft.
Once Apple’s market share for Mac OS X reaches about 25% worldwide, Apple may have to start considering the licensing of Mac OS X, and adjust its business model. Until then, whether Apple has those “other” sources of revenue or not, it is going to continue to focus on profiting from hardware sales, not software sales.
Another rumor raising its ugly head…
First the touch screen mac, now this…
But as always, my response to this is
PLEASE NO!
Three words – clones; Hell, no!
Next question.
Microsoft isn’t afraid of Boot Camp because they don’t care whether you buy a Mac or a Dell, as long as you run Windows or Office on it (preferably both, but Office is way more profitable).
“Will Apple license the OS X?”
This guy must have gone to The Ohio State University.
Mmmmmm
Slow gnuz day….
This “argument” is a non sequitur.
There are two major parts to the Apple computer experience – hardware and software – both OS and third party. No other op platform has the integrated conventions that copyrighted and patented MacOS X has. Some may (and have) tried (the operative word is tried) the do what Apple has done: made pretty boxes but with crappola operating systems and some have tried to insert MacOS X into a pissant (think that is how it is spelled) knockoff wanna be and the results have been atrocious.
Apple prides itself in its hardware production. It is not just the flash and shiny. It is the quality of components.
As an example – there is a condenser manufactured in China and used in many power supplies that use a well known OP sys and the only price point considered is “cheap” (as opposed to inexpensive) – these components can be found in many a brand name and no name PCs. The Chinese characters on the side of the condenser literally spell “f u c k you” and the component lives up to its name – usually failing in less than a year. Hmmm. 75% of the time.
Enter Apple – they only use high quality condensers – like ones from Panasonic (no F U C K you on the label). These condensers usually last 5 to seven years.
When you do a component callout and bid request – you can look at it several ways.
I like the way that Apple requires the best at the time. It just works.
Cheers.
my 2p (which is now worth about 2 Citi Banks and one GM)
” width=”19″ height=”19″ alt=”wink” style=”border:0;” />
Apple isn’t a hardware company, nor are they a software company. They were a computer hardware company, and then became a computer *systems* company. They evolved into a media systems company and are now a media systems and distribution company.
Re-write the question a little bit:
Should Apple license their OS?
To some degree, they already have. Not OS X of course, but iTunes, Safari, QuickTime, etc…
There’s a much more subtle delineation between software applications and the OS when you stop and think about it. Those apps I listed (and others) allow additional Apple media systems (iPods, iPhones, Apple TVs) to work with Windows based PCs.
There may come a time when it’s in Apple’s interest to even further support more of iLife on Windows based PCs. If done properly, this could achieve multiple benefits:
1) Bring in revenue from users locked into Windows who would never switch, but would buy iLife and iLife upgrades.
2) Sell additional media systems to Windows users.
3) Convince Windows users to switch, or make the switch easier since their iLife would already be in the Mac format/structure and be familiar.
Whatever the case, Apple has already significantly invaded the Windows PC world. It’s easy to see how the widespread adoption of the iPhone has come about not so much because it’s compatible with OS X, but rather it’s compatible with QuickTime/iTunes/etc which are already installed in a huge number of Windows based PCs.
Ideally these people love the experience and switch to Macs, but if they can’t/won’t, Apple can still have them as loyal customers of other media systems and distribution.
MacSlut is smarter than MacGenius.
@ macgenius…
I’ve recently noticed your posts in the last week. You’re far from a genius.
First off, those finite choices Apple provides seem to be doing just fine. Not everyone needs a gaming machine. Matte screens are overrated – I’ve used glossy since my first MacBook a few years ago and there is absolutely nothing wrong with it. I really don’t see how people bitch so much about glare. I don’t see it. And, if it’s so bad, get a matte screen film and problem is solved. People seem to think that everyone in the world needs to be able to easily upgrade their machines at any given time. No, that’s just not true. Most people aren’t highly technical. They do not need to be able to rip out video cards and such at any particular whim. The tinkerers are a niche group.
OS X has been out since 2001. Bootcamp has been out for 2 years. I think it’d taken off already. I don’t think anything about Bootcamp was a fallback plan. Fall back to what? Selling half-assed software on grade A hardware. I’ve also seen no real issues playing games on a Mac. Which super awesome 3d games don’t work when running natively on a Mac? The virtualization programs AREN’T meant to provide the 3d capabilities. They’re getting closer, but, that’s not the point of the programs.
Given the meteoric rise of marketshare, I’m fairly certain that Apple won’t be looking to you for ideas about how to get better and grow. Keep telling yourself you’re awesome though!
Stop the madness. Never.
Apple currently make their money from hardware but if they licenced osx then that would surely change! This would put m$soft back another 7 years. Imagine all those vista capable (right) machines running Leopard. More money to apple and perhaps mac hardware next time for the newly converted. This is a win win win.
Ok so I think it should happen but if nothing else could you just chuckle a bit at ballmer having to cope! priceless
” width=”19″ height=”19″ alt=”smile” style=”border:0;” />
Why don’t Apple just buy Dell they could afford them at their current share price & use the brand to sell into the lower margin end of the market. Since Snow Leopard is possibly due early in 2009 you could let the newly bought Dell use just the existing Leopard OS & that would encourage people eventually to upgrade to higher margin Apple branded Macs with Snow Leopard for even greater performance + usability. A Low End Mac article today suggested this.
It wouldn’t make sense for Apple to license its OS in regions where this would result in a repeat of the situation with the licensed clone makers of yore. But that doesn’t mean it wouldn’t make sense to license it companies in the Second and Third Worlds, as long as the license was for use only within their countries.
Imagine the payoff if it licensed its OS to a local company in Brazil, Russia, India, and China for, say, $25 per license. If each country sold 10 million Mac-alikes per year, that would add up to $1 billion per year for Apple. (4 * 25 * 10,000,000) This wouldn’t cannibalize current sales in those locations, because they are nearly non-existent. Licensing the OS to remaining countries in the 2nd and 3rd Worlds might bring in an additional billion. And this would be nearly pure profit–Apple wouldn’t have to invest much to obtain this return. (The local companies would be responsible for product support.)
This would also take much wind out of Microsoft’s sails. And Linux’s.
Apple should license older versions of the OS and release them via bit torrent, along with a list of what hardware it will run on. Apple can explain it will not offer genius appointments or telephone tech support for these releases.
Apple put on the boot up screen that people can get the improved, current version of the OS-if they buy a Mac! Apple will gain market share and add developers without cannibalizing new mac sales.
I agree with many of the posts. It is Apple as a systems company that make it special, heck, don’t they build their Hardware from the same parts bin as HP, Dell etal?
It is absurd to purchase Dell. What on earth does Dell have? It’s core is enterprise, and Apple can’t / won’t pay their dues to get into enterprise!
I can not see why Apple can’t take the high end of the market and let someone else have the low end. Even geographically as someone above noted. India and China are ripe for a PC explosion, but you can’t make money in those markets, why not lock in your profit via licensing and let someone else take the business risk to provide low cost hardware into those markets.
@MDN,
The logic in your take is flawed… severely. While it is true that Apple gets revenue from iPod and iPhone sales, those products are all sub $1000. Macs are (with only a couple of exceptions) are all above $1000, and carry a very high margin. In terms of pure numbers, Apple makes a very, very large percentage of its money directly from the ever-increasing sales of its Macintosh computer line; and OSX is the primary driving force behind that.
Apple has made it’s mark and had success with their model of vertical integration. Even if money weren’t the issue, to waver from that model would be disastrous for the company. I do imagine one day, long after Steve Jobs has passed away and the company is a generation or two removed from his passion and vision, Apple will break away from what has made it successful, and the company will likely start to break apart at the seams in the same way Microsoft is doing now. At that point, hopefully there will be a new upstart with a cult following encouraging us to Think Different.
@clyde;
Makes no sense. You’d have to support older versions, particularly security wise, or if not, allow those users to continue to upgrade free to the next to the current version. I’d be happy to run on 10.4 for free. You would never get those folks to convert. They’d buy cheapo units to run the last version of OSX at a cost substantially below what Apple charges for a new unit and the current version. The differentiation between releases isn’t compelling enough to bridge that economic divide.
@Roger Knights
You are unwittingly suggesting that Apple imitate Microsoft’s business model; licensing partners and farming out support to OEMs. Just imagine: it will be just like getting support for Windows from Dell. Whoopee.
Apple will license OS X to other hardware manufacturers when it decides to compete with itself. In other words, never. No other hardware manufacturer needs OS X, anyway. They can create their own Linux distro for their own hardware. The customer perceives the hardware value in the software, so why let Apple or Microsoft control your customer’s opinion of your products? Why not control it yourself?
In these days of standard formats and protocols, we don’t all have to use the same OS anyway.
“MacSlut is smarter than MacGenius.”
I concur.
” width=”19″ height=”19″ alt=”smirk” style=”border:0;” />
I think she would be more fun to hang out with.
” width=”19″ height=”19″ alt=”smile” style=”border:0;” />
@Harvey:
“You are unwittingly suggesting ….”
No, the suggestion is “witting.”
“Just imagine: it will be just like getting support for Windows from Dell. Whoopee.”
Only for those abroad. And they can’t afford support from Apple anyway. So no buyer would come out a loser. Buyers abroad would get less support, but they’d have a product that needs less support–and they’d be better off having it, along with poor support, than having Windows (with poor support).
“Apple will license OS X to other hardware manufacturers when it decides to compete with itself.”
But, as I was at pains to make explicit, Apple’s sales in the 2nd & 3rd Worlds are nearly nonexistent, so it would NOT be “competing with itself.”
“In other words, never.”
Famous last words–we’ve heard ’em before.
Oh, Christ! This topic AGAIN?!
As Apple’s OS X market grows, it becomes essential that the company either widen the choice of hardware it offers customers OR selectively licence OS X to companies who can build hardware options to meet a large variety of consumer needs.
If Apple resists doing this, it will quick become to be seen as a company with a Microsoft mentality towards the customer.
‘Switchers’ don’t remain ‘switchers for long… they soon become experienced Mac users with demands for hardware that suits them – not Apple.
Just bought a laptop for my wife, a long time Microsoft Windows user who because of me has become familiar with OSX. She is still more comfortable windose and isn’t quite used to dragging and dropping icons.
Right Click Dependence Syndrome I call it.
So we went to a big box retailer to look at all the different laptops.
I’ve been Mac user forever – 20 + years.
I was a bit frustrated because I didn’t want to spend more than $1500CDN – taxes in. But my wife wanted at least a 15 in. screen.
Apple doesn’t do that.
Sooooooo!!! Guess what!
After looking at all the flimsy PC junk with 15 inch screens or bigger, for way less than $1500, she decided to go with the “little macbook” saying… “I’m sure I’ll get used to the small screen”.
Even though I have exposed her to OS X, the hardware closed the deal. Because she is so used to Windows XP it would have been less expensive to buy a PC with a bigger screen but there wasn’t even one notebook computer made by any manufacturer that even came close to the Macbook. Moral of the story?
Hardware makes a huge difference.
The OS makes a big difference.
When they come together in a single amazing package they represent an “experience”.
I agree with Willie G.
When the vision is lost at Apple, they will licence the OS, and Apple will stumble.
Until then… Great Software deserves superior hardware.
Solution: Retool Filemaker, Apple’s subsidiary company, to be both a software (database) and hardware company. Perhaps they could resurrect the Claris name for the hardware. The small to large corporations would then have the ‘choice’ of hardware providers which support OS X. It would also give a choice of different form factors and certain (not all) price points which Apple itself isn’t interested in.
I think we could rely on Filemaker, coming from the same gene pool, to put out some great industrial designs for us to salivate over.
And any hardware sales Apple looses to Filemaker ends up back in the same barrel of cash anyway.
What do you reckon?
NO!!!!!!!!!
Why? Because right now Apple controls the whole widget, the software and the hardware. Break either one and you have what amounts to Microsoft and the PC world. Everyone doing there own thing, which amounts to most of it not working 99% of the time.
The license fee isn’t worth the pain that us the customer would face later on because of all the incompatibilities between hardware and software. And Apple would lose the edge that it now has in the market. It would be one big bland computer world.
The big question is “What does Apple gain by licensing OS X?”
The answer: Nothing.
Apple can contract with many manufacturing companies to assemble it’s products. There’s no need to buy Dell, license OS X to HP, or any other combination you can dream up. Apple can do it all.
The only thing licensing does for Apple is to create more competition between Apple and the clone makers. So we have The Clone Wars, just not in Star Wars terms.
The only result from The Clone Wars is that Apple has to reduce its margins because other clones can be bought for less money. And in the drive to gain customers, clone makers start pricing their machines lower and lower. And they add other “features” which no one really needs, but which cause compatibility issues between hardware and software. Eventually they have to use cheaper and inferior parts.
Then you don’t have a Mac, you have PC running OS X. Definitely not the same.
“MacSlut is smarter than MacGenius.”
And hotter… probably.
Licensing OSX sounds like something that stockholders would come up with. All stockholders care about is growth. They don’t care about the products. They start clamoring for anything, even if it’s crap, to get growth. Too many CEOs start thinking about pleasing the stockholders instead of the customers.
Luckily, Jobs knows that the customers are the people who buy the stuff. There is absolutely no way in hell that Steve Jobs will ever license Apple’s OS to anybody, ever, period. iCal *that,* indefinitely.
One reason, and one reason only. Apple needs to licence OSX to a hardware maker who’s willing to offer matte screens.
Matte films don’t work. Google for reviews.
While some people find gloss ok, others face harsher lighting conditions, and others are more susceptible to eyestrain. Hence, the people who don’t mind glare or don’t get eyestrain cannot empathise with the other half who do get eyestrain or have harsher lighting conditions, e.g. right against a sunlit window with pin-point lighting indoors.
I agree, from a profit and hardware-software integration viewpoint, Apple does not need to licence. BUT I WANT MY MATTE SCREEN.
This question always surfaces about once a year. I’m getting tired of this and “Will Apple buy Palm?” or “Will Apple buy Sony” or “Will Apple buy Nintendo”
Apple should buy back stock…
Apple is selling more Macs then ever before. Why the hell would they jeopardize this markedly marketable advantage!!!
Kirk, so in other words Apple should do it only to please you? Where does this sense of entitlement come from. Ether they have a product you like, or they don’t, end of discussion.
I was once hopeful that the CHRP would offer some competition to Windows. There is not even a remote possibility that Apple could widely license Mac OS X now. Microsoft has twenty times Apple’s share of the OS market, but revenues only twice Apple’s and net income less than four times Apple’s. If it were licensed, Mac OS X would have to achieve dramatically high market share gains to break even. Without strong, committed partners (even in the CHRP days IBM and Motorola hardly qualified) this is unrealistic.
Apple has always been a product company. Hardware and operating system were conceived as parts of a single whole from the very beginning of the Macintosh. iPod and iPhone continue that tradition.
Apple will just have to trundle on with high customer satisfaction, growth, and margins without a short cut to world domination.
I was visibly shocked when they offered Bootcamp
Wish I’d been there to see it!
but I believe this was a “fall back” state in case OS X didn’t take off. Then Apple would just become another PC vendor and license Windows.
I doubt that would ever have happened. Apple allowed Windows on Macs because hackers were doing it anyway, and because it was one more incentive for switchers.
Well, no. Arguments that Apple should license OS X are definitely not anywhere near as old as the company itself. Considering Apple’s been around for 30 years, and OS X less than a decade. I hate these so-called journalists who introduce their story with sweeping generalizations several leagues divorced from reality. Actually I love ’em — they make me feel smart.
Will Apple license Mac OS X?
Yes.
The same day BMW licenses their models to be sold under a Detroit nameplate.
Would Mercedes sell engines to Chevrolet???
Not a chance! Remember Steve Jobs quotes “Those serious with software make their own hardware” last year and jab at M$ about their lousy performance?
Been there and done that… and it was nice!
Answer… NO!
MacGenius? Far from it.
Bravo MacSlut!
WHY do people continue to rewrite this same article that keeps reappearing? What’s the point? HitWhore.com
@mr_matalino
Why in hell would Apple buy back stock, it has 1/10 the outstanding shares of Microsoft 8.9Bto888M, 1/3 the outstanding shares of HP 2.4B-888M and 1/2 the outstanding share of Dell 1.9B-888M. What value would that bring to shareholders that this volitile economic chlimate would not take away? In tech companies shareholders are better served by the company investments in R&D;to bring out the next hit product or better offerings of your current ones. Stock manipulation by share buy back or stock splits are cheap accounting tricks that do little for share holder value (smoke and mirrors). Their effect on the bottom line is fleeting at best.
Apple will license its OS any day now, and Yellow Box will be out next week.
I can see them licensing it for embedded applications. OSX is highly scalable and stable. I could see automobile applications, smart appliances, etc.
@Macslut…thank you for your perceptive thoughts…it is an interesting way to think of the company.
Not gonna happen.
What I’d like to see, though, is a big PC maker (say, HP) who’d dump Windows and start making their own OS. Heck, a HP branded Linux distro would be just fine. They could brand it just the way they’d like it, make it stable and well-optimized (just like OS X), add some innovative GUI features etc.
The only thing lacking is the courage to do it. Now that the Redmond Beast is weakened by the epic fail that is Vista, somebody should definitely go ahead with this.
Why do you think there isn’t tighter control on installations of OSX? You MUST buy a Mac, (new or used) to run it. And for switchers, once they run it on a cheap used Mac, they won’t go back to Windows. And their next computer will be a new Mac.
OSX unrestricted is pure, irresistible fishing bait.
Apple Gifts—If you’re buying a new Mac this season, donate or cheaply sell a decent used Mac to a PC friend. That’s what I do—dangle the bait. Instant convert for life.
Would Mercedes sell engines to Chevrolet???
Why not? They did to Chrysler.
Don’t forget Toyotas sold by GM as the Geo Prism, and the current Pontiac Vibe.
One of Microsoft’s big problems is having to support many platforms and all the combinations of hardware that run its OS. I am amazed at how good a job they do of it.. Apple does not need that kind of headache and, in fact, it would probably limit their ability to innovate. Only an iDiot would want MAC OS to be licensed to other computer builders.
On the other hand they could sell more iPods for a few dollars less…. That makes a lot more sense.
Now , Folks. Stop picking on Mac Genius. Yes, he/it has delusions of adequacy, but it’s not nice to make fun of the impaired.
As a former Mac user, I accidentally came across this article and would like to chime in. I owned macs though my SE 30 until the Imac 400 SE running OS X, I started out with Apple, but once I went to college and majored in Computer Science, and became more of an enthusiast, the Apple hardware limitations became clear. I had been a mac gamer for years, paying twice as much for video cards, limited game and accessories. Don’t get me wrong, Apple has always made great systems, but they are closed systems. I made the switch once i had the chance to work with XP, then I built my first system, I was like a kid in a candy store with all of the hardware choice, not to mention the ease of future upgrades and repairs. I can buy from various vendors and so forth. Well i’ve just finished my newest system build and I made the switch to Vista 64, which is a very good OS now, but I thought for a few minutes about how nice it would be to be able to purchase Mac OS X, choice is good. The point is that being in the I.T. industry, we influence all types of buyers from our offices to workers asking for purchasing advice, Apple I’ve always said this, open up the Mac OS, trust me if you sell it they will come.