“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.